Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

NORFOLK ESTUARY BILL (by Order)

PRESTON CORPORATION BILL (by Order)

SAINT GEORGE HANOVER SQUARE BURIAL GROUND BILL (by Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

WEST RIDING COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (by Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Housing Subsidies

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the reduction in Government housing subsidies per thousand four-apartment houses built by local authorities, comparing 1951 with 1962.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Noble): None, Sir. The amount of subsidy paid per thousand four-apartment houses completed in the local authority financial year 1950–51 was £26,220. The figure for 1961–62 was £29,614.

Mr. Manuel: Nevertheless, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great financial morass into which Scottish local authorities are getting because of the imposition of high interest charges on loans, even those running over the full course of 60 years? It is making it very difficult for them to tackle the outstanding housing programmes which are needed in every area in the country.

Mr. Noble: The difficulty which some local authorities may be getting into is,

to some extent, a different question, but the policy of helping by open housing subsidies and not by means of artificially low interest rates is the right one.

Cumbernauld

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to provide primary school accommodation in the new town of Cumbernauld.

Mr. Noble: In addition to the three schools already in use, the education authority has a fourth school under construction and hopes to start a fifth within the next few months. Two more are included in its programme for the next three years.

Mr. Bence: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that schools planned today for completion in two years' time will not even accommodate all the children who are without accommodation today? Will he recommend to the county council the use of portable units, provided by his Department, which could be added to the present schools to accommodate the few children who cannot get places until next August?

Mr. Noble: I do not entirely accept the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary Question, but I agree that it is difficult to forecast for any new town the likely arrival of children in primary schools. The local education authority is in touch with my Department, and I am certain that, if there is some method by which the development corporation, the local education authority and my Department can combine to avoid trouble and overcome the temporary shortage, we will adopt it.

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in the provision of recreation facilities in the new town of Cumbernauld.

Mr. Noble: Fourteen halls and two community rooms in housing areas are available for community activities. A further hall, two community rooms and a youth and community centre sponsored by the Y.M.C.A. and Y.W.C.A. are under construction. There are at present two football pitches and a large number of children's play areas. Work is in progress on a 20 acre sports field with the help of a grant from the Wolfson Trust.

Mr. Bence: Will the right hon. Gentleman do what he can to speed the completion of this recreational area, which will be equipped by a grant from the Wolfson Trust, since I understand that it is nowhere near ready for equipment? I understand, also, that the district council, which will be responsible for administration for the area, is being sorely pressed to provide facilities, although the basic provision is not yet available.

Mr. Noble: I am sure that the corporation will take note of what the hon. Member has said. I know that it is keen to speed up the provision of these facilities.

Scottish Tourist Board

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the total amount of Government grant which will be given to the Scottish Tourist Board for 1964–65 and for 1965–66.

Mr. Noble: A temporary grant of £15,000 a year was introduced in 1959 for a three-year period. It has since been extended for a further two years and will be continued for another year to cover 1964–65.

Mr. Manuel: Does that roundabout Answer mean that the paltry sum of £15,000 a year, which has been received by the Tourist Board for the last five years, is to be discontinued in 1965–66 and that thereafter the Board will receive no Government grant? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government of Northern Ireland gives its Tourist Board £150,000 annually and that the Government of Eire spends £500,000 annually to boost its tourist facilities? Will he not try to measure up to those smaller countries and do something for Scotland?

Mr. Noble: The hon. Member is wrong in thinking that it was a paltry sum. It was a sum provided for a specific experimental purpose, and it has produced very useful results. As I told the hon. Member in our Second Reading debate on the Tourist Amenities Bill some time ago, this is not the sum total of Government help. About £1,250,000 is given through the B.T.H.A. to help tourism, and on its calculations a direct sum of £40,000 is given to the Scottish

Tourist Board and up to £400,000 is spent on services which are directly applicable to tourism in Scotland.

Mr. Hoy: But if the £15,000 has had such beneficial effects as the right hon. Gentleman claims, why is he discontinuing it?

Mr. Noble: Because the experiment for which it was designed is practically complete.

Accused Persons (Prison Detention)

Mr. Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of persons held in prison before trial in 1962; what was the average period for which they were so held; and what proportion of such persons, when tried, were found not guilty or sentenced only to a fine.

Mr. Carmichael: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland in how many cases in the last year for which statistics are available accused persons have been detained in prison pending trial who were eventually dealt with by fine, probation discharge, or acquittal.

Mr. Noble: During 1962, 9,303 men and 540 women were admitted to prison untried, on an average they were held between 12 and 13 days. These figures include those refused bail and those who had not yet arranged bail. Of these, 4,787 men and 370 women paid fines or were admonished, placed on probation or disposed of otherwise than by detention; 964 men and 93 women were found not guilty, and the remaining 3,552 men and 77 women were sentenced to detention. I regret that there is no separate information available regarding the number fined.

Mr. Lawson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a shocking indictment of what is happening in Scottish courts? Is he aware that this is much more than double the English-Welsh proportion? Is there not strong evidence that our courts are using remands in custody as an additional punishment? Will he look into this question and see that if this practice is followed—and all the evidence suggests that it is—it is stopped at once? Is it not a fantastic position that 900 people should be sent to prison and


then found not guilty? I hope that he will tell us now what he intends to do to stop this kind of practice.

Mr. Noble: Whether people appear in court and are found not guilty is not a question over which I can have any direct influence, but I will certainly look at the matter in the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am aware that the position is worse than it is in England, and I am not pleased that that should be so.

Hydro-Electric Schemes

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hydroelectricity schemes undertaken by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board have proceeded without public inquiry.

Mr. Noble: Thirty-one, Sir.

Mr. Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that Answer more or less proves that what he has now done in respect of the Laidon scheme, which is being held up even though there are no objections, by his insistence on a public inquiry, is unprecedented? Will he inform his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that he has chosen his constituency in which to hold up the modernisation of the Highlands?

Mr. Noble: Anything which is done for the first time is unprecedented, but that does not necessarily mean that it is wrong. I am sure that the Prime Minister knows where Loch Laidon is.

Mr. Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton), the Prime Minister said that hydro-electric schemes had been held up because there were objections? Here is one in the Prime Minister's own constituency which is being held up and where there are no objections.

Mr. Noble: I accept that that is so.

Mr. T. Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why it is necessary to have a public inquiry when there are no objections?

Mr. Noble: I explained this to the House at Question Time a fortnight ago. The whole problem of whether the use of hydro-electricity is economic is just as important to the Highlands as to the

rest of Scotland and seems to be a sensible reason for an inquiry. Hon. Members opposite may not care whether things are economic, but I can assure them that the Highlands do.

Mr. Ross: I agree that the right hon. Gentleman explained it a fortnight ago, but he should tell the House that, following his explanation, he sent me a letter telling me that the information he had given was wrong.

Mr. Noble: I am prepared to admit it when I am wrong. I wrote, rightly and courteously, to the hon. Gentleman saying that in giving the information to the House I used the phrase "capital costs", which was a kind of shorthand. However, it was wrong and I should have said "on what terms capital should be offered to finance electricity".

Central Scotland

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action has been taken on the plan for Central Scotland, and on what parts of the plan; what are the planned priorities; and what is the estimated time table.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the meetings between his Department and local authorities in respect of the Government's proposals for growth and development in Central Scotland.

Mr. Noble: As the Reply is rather long, I shall with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Woodburn: Is it true that the Secretary of State has begun only in the last week or so to get down to the practical possibilities of the Central Scotland plan? It is not rather strange that the Government should wait until the last months of their term of office to start on a plan for Scotland which should have been prepared twelve years ago? Is it not a piece of window dressing to produce a plan on which no work behind the scenes has been done and for which no preparations have been made or dates given for the starting of main roads which will be highways from Edinburgh to Stirling and Stirling to south of the Border, or even for the Glasgow road which will cover the area?

Mr. Noble: When the right hon. Gentleman gets my reply, he will see that a great deal of work has been done and that it is by no means true to say that it has started only in the last week or two. It is true that it is only in the last week that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has had consultations with local authorities, but they, too, wanted to have time to consider the implications of the scheme for their areas.

Mr. Lawson: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, on an earlier occasion, he said that there had been long and careful preparation before these plans were announced? Is he aware that the preparation was so careful that in my constituency the Burgh of Motherwell and Wishaw, a single, joint burgh, was split in two? Does he intend that it should be cut into two and that one part should be in the development area and one not? Was this the result of careful preparation? What is the evidence that anybody in the area considered where the demarcation line should be placed?

Mr. Noble: The division between Motherwell and Wishaw is a separate matter and, if the hon. Gentleman puts down a Question, I will deal with it in detail. These problems are concerned with a great deal more than the physical position of places on the map. There are questions of employment exchange areas and so on, and I can assure the hon. Member that if he had tried to produce this plan alone it would have taken him a very long time.

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that according to the plan Motherwell and Wishaw appeared to be in the development area, but that according to the appendix Wishaw is not? Does not this show a startling confusion among the people responsible for the plan?

Mr. Noble: It does not show anything of the sort. If a map had been produced to show exact delineation of all the areas, hon. Members would have had the greatest difficulty carrying it around with them. It was clearly said in the White Paper that the lines on the map were not meant accurately to delineate the exact areas.

The Reply is as follows:

CENTRAL SCOTLAND WHITE PAPER PROGRESS AS AT MID-JANUARY, 1964

Trunk Roads

1. Tenders have been invited for the following schemes:—
A.74—Glasgow—Carlisle Hamilton Bypass Motorway—9 miles. Ecclefechan—Kirkpatrick Fleming—dual carriageways, 5 miles.

2. Statutory schemes have been made for the following motorways:—

A.8—Newhouse—West of Harthill (5·15 miles) Special Road Scheme.
A.74—Hamilton Bypass, including orders for connecting and side roads.

3. The following schemes have been advertised:—

A.8—Renfrew Bypass (6·2 miles) (Special Road Scheme and Trunk Road Order).
A.9—Pobnont—Falkirk Bypass (5·8 miles) (Special Road Scheme).
A.90—Cowdenbeath Bypass Stage II (7·4 miles) (Special Road Scheme).

Classified Roads

4. Erskine Bridge:—
Consulting engineers have been appointed by the Joint Board to prepare a report.

5. Glasgow Inner Ring Road:—
Preparation of the first section is in hand; preliminary work on piping sections of the canal will be authorised soon.

6. Livingston New Town:—
Proposals about the classified road pattern in the town are under consideration.

7. General classified programme:—
Provisional list of additional schemes for 1964–65 amounting to £2·4 million (Exchequer £1·6) were sent to local authorities on 3rd December and discussions on these are now proceeding.

Airports

(1) Invitations to tender for the terminal building at Abbotsinch have been issued and piling operations and other site works are under way.
(2) Two meetings have been held by the Ministry of Aviation with Edinburgh Corporation about Turnhouse Airport.

Urban Transport
Agreement has been reached with Glasgow Corporation, the Clyde Valley Regional Planning Advisory Committee, British Railways and the Scottish Bus Group on arrangements for a transport survey of the Greater Glasgow area. The Ministry of Transport and the Scottish Development Department will be associated with this work.

Water Supplies

(1) An interim committee of local authorities concerned is making preparations for the development of Loch Lomond as a source of water supply for central Scotland.
(2) The Scottish Water Advisory Committee have been asked as a matter of urgency


to consider the arrangements required for developing Loch Bradan as a source of water supply for Ayrshire.

Housing

(1) The Scottish Special Housing Association have been authorised to build a further 100 houses at Irvine in addition to the 400 overspill houses already completed in that area.
(2) In Dumbarton they are proceeding with 50 overspill houses.

New Towns
The budget expenditure proposed for 1964–5 is £13·9 million as compared with £9·7 million for 1963–4.
The acceleration of development which this represents is now under discussion with the Development Corporations.

Town Development Scheme
The Town Development Scheme and the associated Development Plan amendment for Inverkeithing have been approved; taken in conjunction with the prospects held out by the Board of Trade Estate an Donibristle, this decision will assist further growth in the area.

Factories to be built by local authorities
Approval has been given to the construction of four factories at Irvine and three at Kirkintilloch for specific firms (total 28,000 sq. ft.).

Training and Education

(1) Ministry of Labour Training Centre facilities are now available for about 700 adults and 84 First Year apprentices at Hillington, Motherwell and Muircockhall. The detailed planning of new centres at Dumbarton, Irvine, Port Glasgow and N.E. Glasgow is now well advanced.
(2) At the request of the Ministry of Labour, research by the University of Glasgow into the labour supply problems of the construction industry was started on 1st January 1964.
(3) The provision of a new technical college at Alloa and the first phase of a new college at Glenrothes have been approved.
(4) There has been expansion in technical colleges of the courses for full-time education and training in the first year of craft apprenticeship.
(5) The introduction of additional national certificate and diploma courses in science and electrical engineering is now under discussion by the appropriate examining and professional bodies.

Publicity
Informal talks with the Scottish Council have been held and I am sending formal proposals for their consideration very shortly.

Consultations with local authorities
My noble Friend the Minister of State held a series of meetings with the local authorities of the growth areas in Fife, Lanarkshire, the Vale of Leven and Grangemouth-Falkirk, on 21st, 22nd and 23rd January. In the first three areas, in relation to which the White Paper stresses the need for general rehabilitation, my noble Friend suggested that if the attractions to industry were to be fully

exploited there is need for a comprehensive plan concerned with the provision of factory sites, basic services, any necessary housing for key workers, road improvements, the clearance of poor housing and other substandard property, and general improvement of amenity. The success of such a plan will depend on close co-ordination of investment between the local authorities and the Central Departments, and on the production of an agreed and carefully phased programme of action. My noble Friend explained that as far as the Central Departments were concerned, officials dealing with the various interests were being co-ordinated in a single working team, and he invited the local authorities, for their part, to consider the nomination of a corresponding team. The local authority representatives agreed to consider this and to inform my Department urgently of the arrangements they proposed in order that the first stage of the growth area plans could be worked out without delay.
At the meeting with the local authorities in the Grangemouth-Falkirk area the local authorities agreed in principle to his suggestion that the assistance of the Universities of Glasgow and Edinburgh should be sought in undertaking in the area a survey similar to that now under way in the Lothians. The joint directors of that survey, Sir Robert Matthew and Professor Donald Robertson, are to be asked to prepare plans for a substantial expansion of the area, with particular regard to its potential for industries which might help to build up the existing industrial complex. My noble Friend explained that in this area too the team of officials in the Central Departments would wish to have regular and frequent meetings with a similar team from the local authorities. Immediate action could be taken on many problems within the framework of the longer term plan.
Earlier a meeting took place between my Department and representatives of Ayr County Council and Irvine and Kilwinning Town Councils at which it was agreed to commission a joint investigation by local and central officials of the scope for large scale development in the Irvine area and to assess the physical planning issues and the implications for the local authorities. A decision will then be taken in consultation with the local authorities as to whether an appropriate area should be designated under the New Towns Act.
It is hoped to arrange a meeting with the authorities in the Greater Livingston area shortly.

Hospitals

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what hospitals were substantially rebuilt in 1963.

Mr. Noble: The Dundee Royal Lift Hospital and the Mackinnon Memorial Hospital at Broadford in Skye.

Dr. Mabon: May I ask the Secretary of State whether, unlike his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, he would


be kind enough to venture a definition of the distinction between a substantially rebuilt hospital and a new hospital? When is a new hospital a new hospital but not a substantially rebuilt one, and when is a substantially rebuilt hospital not a new hospital?

Mr. Noble: I am always extremely nervous of making definitions, because generally they confuse the issue a good deal more. I imagine, I hope correctly, that a new hospital is one which is built where no hospital existed before.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the bed capacity of each new hospital built in Scotland between 1952 and 1963.

Mr. Noble: The hospitals are Vale of Leven, Alexandria, 155 beds; Victoria, Kirkcaldy, 123 beds; Gilbert Bain Memorial, Lerwick, 65 beds and Bellshill Maternity, 132 beds.

Dr. Mabon: May I ask the Secretary of State whether I am correct in assuming that the rate of starting and completing new hospitals in Scotland is one per 1,098 days, representing something substantially less than half a hosiptal bed every day since the Conservative Party came to office?

Mr. Noble: The hon. Gentleman can calculate it that way if he likes, but it is none the less true that at the moment we have under construction ten new or substantially rebuilt hospitals. Five of them are expected to be completed during this year, and another five new big hospitals will be started during this year, so perhaps at the beginning the rate was due to not enough starts before we took over rather than to our failure.

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent he was consulted before the recent decision was made to use oil for heating in the new Edinburgh Royal Infirmary and Western General Hospital; and what was the nature of his advice.

Mr. T. Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he had with the National Coal Board about the fuel to be used for heating installations in the new hospitals in Edinburgh; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what decision has been reached concerning the type of feul to be used for the heating of the new hospitals in Edinburgh; what were the factors which determined the decision; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. J. Hill: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will reconsider his decision to approve the installation of oil-fired heating appliances in the proposed new hopsitals in Edinburgh.

Mr. Noble: The regional hospital board asked for my guidance on policy before it reached a decision. I had no direct consultations with the National Coal Board. I advised the hospital board that after considering any functional factors which might affect the choice it should compare the cost of the fuels available on the basis of an annual charge, including fuel, operational and maintenance costs, together with an appropriate annual allowance for the capital cost; if the difference was more than marginal it should be regarded as pointing to a decision in favour of the lower cost installation. The board took revised offers from all the fuel interests concerned and the engineering reports then showed that the annual costs with oil would be about £10,000 less than with coal, and the board accordingly proposed that oil should be used. I have since approved the use of oil at these two hospitals and authorised the board to plan on this basis.

Mr. Willis: Did the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that he has rather wider responsibilities than merely considering the simple economic balance sheets of the hospital board? Can he tell us whether the differential price for coal, which operates against Scottish miners, played a big part in ensuring that oil came out better than coal? If so, what representations did the right hon. Gentleman make to the Minister of Power to ensure that the price of coal was such that it would have been possible to use it for this purpose and so benefit the coal industry in Scotland?

Mr. Noble: I accept the fact that my interests are wider, but an annual increase of cost of £10,000 over a period


that could be as long as 60,000 years—[HON. MEMBERS: "60,000 years?"]—is a considerable sum.
With regard to the selective price increase, I am certain that the Coal Board quoted as competitive a price as it can now. The decision whether, and if so when, prices can be reduced is one for the Coal Board and not for me.

Mr. T. Fraser: Is it not the Government's policy that preferential consideration should be given to offers made by the National Coal Board where there is a question of using indigenous fuel? This is the oft-declared policy of the Government. The question is whether the selective coal price increase of 10s. a ton imposed upon Scotland just over two years ago has made it impossible for the Divisional Coal Board of Scotland to quote a price that is competitive with that of oil. Does not the right hon. Gentleman have a responsibility to consult the National Coal Board to see whether it would waive its selective coal price increase, especially in view of the fact that in Edinburgh the market for coal is being lost, although it is alongside the rich Midlothian coalfield.

Mr. Noble: It is for the Coal Board to decide what price it is prepared to quote for any particular tonnage in any particular place. If anything, the figures that I have given favour coal because, for example, they have taken no account of the fact that after 25 years the initial plant would have to be replaced, and the figures ignore the amount by which the replacement of oil plant would be cheaper than that of coal plant. I can assure the House that I do my best to help the coal industry, but it must be on the basis that the cost is only marginally above the price of others.

Mr. Hamilton: How does the right hon. Gentleman define the word "marginal"? Is he aware that the economy of Central Scotland, if not the whole of Scotland, depends basically on coal, our indigenous fuel? What has Scotland got from the oil industry that the right hon. Gentleman should give it preferential treatment? If he is arguing for the purely economic test, will he apply that same test to farms? If Scottish farms had to pass that test, virtually all of them would be shut down.

Mr. Noble: The hon. Member's last comment is neither accurate nor particularly appropriate —

Mr. Willis: It is very fair.

Mr. Noble: —but the fact remains that important as coal is—and the decision about the big new electricity station shows the amount of time and trouble that we try to take to get the right answer—we must have regard to costs both in respect of industry and in things like hospitals, because although these sums of £10,000 a year may be regarded by the hon. Member as only marginal, over a long period they involve a substantial sum.

Mr. J. Hill: On what does the Secretary of State base his argument that oil will be cheaper than coal in 60 or 1,000 years' time? I give him credit for searching for jobs for Scotland, but he is bound to agree that in this case instead of helping Scotland he is doing it a disservice. This continual nibbling away at the Coal Board's trade can only mean that the Government are prepared to run down the industry more than at the moment. With due respect to his decision, the Secretary of State should consider the question again.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must observe that the introduction to the hon. Member's question seems a little prolonged. Will he ask his question?

Mr. Noble: The hon. Member is unfair in saying that the Government have decided to run down the coal industry. That industry has made tremendous strides in the last year, as he knows very well, and it is becoming far more competitive and more productive than ever before. This should—and I am sure that it will—result in its obtaining many of these contracts in the future. But it is just as impossible for me to forecast what the price of oil will be in 60 years' time as to forecast what will be the price of coal. Therefore, the present price is the only possible basis of comparison.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am delighted to have seen the care over the expenditure of public money? Can he say what is the objection to using oil—especially if it is British-controlled oil?

Mr. Noble: There is certainly no objection to using oil. In fact, a tax of 2d. per gallon has been put on fuel oil in order to help the coal industry.

Mr. Ross: In the interests of the whole of Scotland, will the Minister enter into discussions with the Minister of Power in relation to differential price increases?

Mr. Noble: I will certainly do that.

Mr. Hamilton: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of all those answers, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter in the Adjournment debate on Wednesday next.

Milk

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements are contemplated for the distribution of milk in marginal and upland rural areas where the only distributors at present are producer-retailers who will be ineligible for assistance under the Winter Keep Scheme.

Mr. Noble: My Department is at present examining the general question of rural milk distribution, including the position of producer-retailers, in consultation with the milk trade. As regards the Winter Keep Scheme, I would remind my hon. Friend that disqualification of upland farms only arises where the sale of milk constitutes the main enterprise.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is really wise, by excluding dairy farmers and milk producers from the Winter Keep Scheme, to risk disrupting normal supplies from areas which at short notice are liable to be cut off from the rest of the country because of blizzards?

Mr. Noble: That point was brought to my notice by a delegation from the Scottish N.F.U., and we are considering it. I think that, in general, the possible ineligibility under the Winter Keep Scheme of some of these dairy farmers is not in itself a decisive factor.

Mr. Manuel: May I ask the Minister whether he can give an explanation of the actual reasons why upland dairy farms are being cut out of the Winter

Keep Scheme when previously, under the M.A.P. Scheme, they received a grant? This is inexplicable and is causing great resentment in every constituency which has upland farms.

Mr. Noble: I know that there is a lot of feeling about this, but in the days of the M.A.P. grant there was also a good deal of feeling because in some areas these grants were given to dairy farmers and in others they were not. It is always difficult to take anything away from somebody who has had it, but I think that it is of advantage that these schemes should be universal in their application and should be seen to be fair.

Mr. Woodburn: Does this apply to places like the Slamannan area where the ground is not suitable for cultivation, and where it may not be possible to maintain farms at all unless they are allowed the grant in addition to supplying milk?

Mr. Noble: I cannot speak about individual farms in any given area. I know a number of farmers who have failed. This applies only to those farms on which more than 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. of the output is milk.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the widespread concern felt by experts at the future of Scottish milk supplies; and if he will reconsider the exclusion from benefit under the Winter Keep Scheme of all those who derive more than 40 per cent. of their farm income from milk products.

Mr. Noble: I am aware that concern has been expressed on this subject in many quarters. This question and my hon. Friend's point about the Winter Keep Scheme will be further considered at the forthcoming Annual Review.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: With the number of dairy cattle in Scotland down by 24,000 in the past year, would it not be prudent of my right hon. Friend to encourage rather than discourage milk production from the upland areas?

Mr. Noble: I do not think that I should anticipate the results of the February Price Review.

Mr. Bence: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into this shortage, since


some factories in Dumries-shire are idle because there are no milk supplies, at a time when we are importing tremendous quantities of dairy products?

Mr. Noble: Yes. My Department is aware of this.

Upland Farmers

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that a mass meeting of upland farmers from Orkney, Caithness, Sutherland. Ross-shire, Inverness-shire, Argyllshire, Banffshire and Aberdeenshire took place at Inverness on 11th January; and, in view of the difficulties facing upland farmers in the north of Scotland as a result of rail closures, withdrawal of grants, unrestricted duty-free imports of mutton and lamb, and almost duty-free imports of beef totalling about 14 million hundredweights per annum, and the annual price review giving lower prices at a time of rising costs, if he will take action to correct a situation which will impoverish the farmers, create unemployment and depopulation, and allow land to go to waste.

Mr. Noble: I have seen reports of the meeting referred to by the hon. Member, but I cannot accept the picture he presents of the position or prospects of upland farmers in the north of Scotland. The state of hill and upland farming, in common with that of other sections of the industry, will be considered at the Annual Review next month, and I cannot anticipate the results of this comprehensive examination of the farming situation.

Sir D. Robertson: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is implying that between 200 and 300 farmers who were present at the meeting in Inverness were lying to three of his colleagues who were present at the meeting? May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that a week or two ago a hill farmer in my constituency sold his land for £85,000? The stock was valued at £55,000, making an investment of £140,000, which is yielding an income of £270 per annum without a wage or contribution to the farmer and his son? Is not my right hon. Friend completely misinformed? If he doubts what the farmers said, why does not he call for an immediate inquiry? Balance sheets can be procured. Any accountant can

be asked to produce balance sheets if the farmers are willing to have that done, as I am sure they would be only too glad to do. Why should the Government always take it out of the farmer and the crofter to maintain a cheap food policy?

Mr. Noble: I have access to a great many economic reports that are produced by colleges and other people who study these things. Having been in farming circles myself. I am also not unaware of the fact that, when a case is put forward, one generally puts forward the best case that one can in the hope of getting the most that one can. That is natural and is accepted.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Has the Minister read the full report of this meeting at Inverness? The terms of the resolution of censure passed on the Government were so extreme that I was appalled. Now that the right hon. Gentleman has become a Minister, is he so completely out of touch with farming opinion that he does not know that all over Scotland farmers are concerned about milk and about winter keep, and want to know when the Government are going to introduce this large-scale programme for the revival of agriculture in Scotland which has been urged on us almost daily by the Scottish N.F.U.?

Mr. Noble: I am delighted to have the hon. Gentleman's sympathy. Most of my friends in the farming community know that the prospects for next year come out in the February Price Review and are awaiting them.

Agricultural Grants and Deficiency Payments

Mr. Hendry: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number and amount of agricultural grants and deficiency payments refused to Scottish farmers in respect of season 1963 on account of alleged irregularity or lateness in giving notice or making application to his department.

Mr. Noble: This information requires a search of Departmental records, which is proceeding. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Mr. Hendry: I thank my right hon. Friend for the trouble that he has taken in this matter, but is it not a fact that


the figures will show a very harsh and oppressive attitude on the part of his Department, involving, in some instances, penalties of several hundred pounds for what, after all, are technical breaches of the regulations? Will he consider laying regulations before the House with a view to imposing modest penalties in such cases, in order to make the punishment fit the crime?

Mr. Noble: I do not want to anticipate what the picture will show, but I have seen a little of it in the past. The number of farmers who are late now represent only a tiny percentage. We are operating a scheme under which people are expected to forward their applications by a certain date, and the scheme will immediately run into chaos if we forget that fact altogether.

Mr. Hendry: But does not my right hon. Friend agree that a loss of £850, which was inflicted upon a constituent of mine—my right hon. Friend has details of the case—is quite harsh and unconscionable in the circumstances? Will not he give the matter further consideration?

Mr. Noble: I will certainly look at the matter, but if that amount of money is at stake it is all the greater reason why my hon. Friend's friend should have taken the trouble to put in his claim in time.

Mr. Hendry: On a point of order. In view of the quite unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at the earliest opportunity on the Adjournment.

Fishery Limits

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has decided on the regulations to govern fishing within the six mile limit round the Scottish coast under the draft Convention drawn up at the second session of the European Fisheries Conference; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Noble: I can add nothing at this stage to the statement made to the House on 20th January, 1964, by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food about the draft Convention, which will be further considered

when the European Fisheries Conference resumes on 26th February.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this proposed extension of the limits, small as it is, could mark a definite improvement in the fortunes of the Scottish inshore fishing fleet? Can he say how soon this draft Convention can be brought into force? When he is considering the necessary regulations, will he pay particular attention to the need for the conservation and development of our own natural fishery resources?

Mr. Noble: As I have told my hon. Friend, the Conference resumes on 26th February. I cannot forecast how quickly after that we may be able to move. It depends how the Conference goes. But the Conference is also very much interested in the other problems that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Mr. Hoy: Will the right hon. Gentleman also take into consideration what consequential effects any of these conferences may have on the middle-water and distant-water fleets, which are not very enthusiastic about what has been achieved up to date?

Mr. Noble: We keep in very close touch with them.

Forth and Tay Road Bridges

Mr. Doig: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give priority to the building of a dual carriageway between the Forth and Tay road bridges.

Mr. Noble: I am giving priority to the provision of dual carriageways on A.90 which, between Inverkeithing and Milnathort, is part of one of the routes between the two bridges.

Mr. Doig: Is the Minister aware that the Prime Minister said only two or three months ago that the Tay road bridge would be of great importance to Dundee as it provided a direct route to the South? Has he considered whether this will provide a direct route to the South?

Mr. Noble: I agree that this road is not a direct route. But in the circumstances it is the best one on which to spend money at this stage.

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now


make a statement on the scale of tolls to be charged on the Forth road bridge.

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce his decision on the Forth Road Bridge Joint Board's recommendations in respect of the toll charges.

Mr. Noble: The Joint Board have submitted for my approval their proposed toll schedule, which provides for a flat rate toll of 2s. 6d. on mechanically propelled vehicles. I have, as required by the relevant Order, specified the newspapers in which the Board are to publish a notice; thereafter there will be a period of not less than six weeks during which objections may be made.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a 2s. 6d. flat-rate toll is fair? If so, will he make the announcement quickly so that it can be implemented, until we get a Labour Government when we shall get rid of it? Is he aware that industrialists who are anxious to come into the area are concerned about what the rate of toll will be?

Mr. Noble: It would be quite improper for me to express my opinion about this before any objection which may be made has been lodged. I think that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about when the toll would be removed is in the hypothetical class.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the Minister aware of the anger and disappointment in Fife at the long delay in accepting the recommendations of the Joint Board and, further, that this delay is having a bad effect on the development of the new town of Donibristle?

Mr. Noble: I do not accept that anyone can complain of the length of the delay as there is a statutory period during which objections may be lodged. Nor am I convinced that it is having a bad effect on Donibristle.

Hospital Boards

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with the South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board which, in a letter to hospital boards of management, has stated that two terms of four years should be regarded as the normal period

of service on such boards; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Noble: The appointment of board of management members is a matter for the regional hospital board, and I have had no recent consultations with the board about it. In 1960, my Department wrote to the board suggesting that it might wish to consider adopting the practice which I follow in relation to regional boards, which is not to reappoint members after two four-year terms unless there are special circumstances.

Mr. Gourlay: Does not the Minister agree that age and ability to make a worth-while contribution to boards of management should be the criteria to determine length of service rather than the arbitrary one of two terms of four years? Is not he embarrassed at the particularly "blue" tone of the complexion of the membership of the South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board?

Mr. Noble: I have never thought that politics played an important part in the capacity of people to help in the Health Service. This is a matter in which one has to keep a balance. I quite agree that experience is important, but so are new ideas.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the Minister suggesting that two members of one political party out of a board membership of 16 represents keeping the balance? Is he aware that the hospital at Kirkcaldy, which is the largest hospital in Fife, is not represented on the regional board and, since there are two vacancies, would he take steps to remedy this omission?

Mr. Noble: I should certainly look at the qualifications of people which would make them suitable for membership of a board without considering for a second what might be their political parties.

Doctors

Sir M. Galpern: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the number of additional general medical practitioners which would be required in Scotland if the present permitted maximum number of patients on a doctor's list was reduced from 3,500 to 2,000.

Mr. Noble: Such an estimate would involve studying in detail the distribution of doctors and patients, and would not be realistic without an assumption about the period over which this reduction in maximum list sizes could be achieved.

Sir M. Galpern: In view of the inability of a doctor properly to look after 3,500 patients; the highly desirable need to reduce the list to about 2,000; the known shortage of doctors in Scotland at the present time and the increased numbers which would be required if such a reduction in the lists were brought about, is the Minister prepared to urge the creation now of an additional medical school, because the present medical school output could not meet the needs were the steps taken that I have mentioned?

Mr. Noble: The problem which faces us in Scotland is not related to the number of doctors but to distribution. If we divide the number of patients by the number of doctors it will be found that we are, on average and over the whole country, below the 2,000 figure. But this does not alter the fact that the moment there are about 2½ million people on lists of over 2,000, 1½ million on lists of over 2,500, and 600,000 on lists of over 3,000. It is a problem of distribution, but we are doing our best to help.

Sir M. Galpern: Do the Minister's calculations take into account the known increase in the population which will take place over the next few years?

Mr. Noble: The figures which I have given are the present figures.

Sir M. Galpern: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of general medical practitioners in Scotland; how many are associated in group practice; how many group practices are in operation; and how many of these are housed in fully equipped centres.

Mr. Noble: At 1st October last there were 2,775 general practitioners, including 121 assistants, practising under the National Health Service in Scotland. The term "group practice" is not precisely defined, but nearly three-quarters of these doctors were in partnerships.

Twenty-five practitioners practice from health centres.

Sir M. Galpern: In view of the small number of medical practitioners practising from properly-equipped group centres, is the Secretary of State prepared to initiate talks with the medical profession to see how this highly desirable development might be expedited?

Mr. Noble: It is my view that this is a desirable development, but at the moment it is experimental. I am certain that if the experiments are successful the medical service will seek my advice about whether I can promote it more quickly.

Housing

Mr. Hendry: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest available figure for houses under construction in Scotland.

Mr. Noble: At the end of 1963 there were 44,687 houses under construction in Scotland by all agencies.

Mr. Hendry: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this splendid achievement? Does not he agree that this is an all-time record for house building in Scotland?

Mr. Noble: It is certainly the highest end-of-year figure since 1947.

Mr. Manuel: Is the Minister aware that he cannot get away with this, and that he is much too glib? Is he aware that we are not concerned with the number of houses it the course of construction, but we are concerned about the completions each year? Is he aware that these have been decreasing rapidly, compared with the houses built in 1952?

Mr. Noble: I agree that at the end of the day it is the number of completions that count. But it is difficult to complete a house if a start is not made.

Mr. Ross: Is the Minister aware that we on this side of the House congratulate him on his achievements in catching up in 1963 with what we were able to do two years after the war?

Mr. Noble: I willingly accept the hon. Gentleman's congratulations and I wish that his party had done as well with hospitals.

Sugar

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how the yield of sugar per acre in the Cupar sugar beet factory area compares, over the last three years, with the rest of the United Kingdom factory areas.

Mr. Noble: The average sugar yield per acre in the Cupar factory area in the three years 1961 to 1963 was respectively 35·35, 33·75 and 27·08 cwt. The comparable average figures for all English factory areas were 45·01, 40·98 and 43·45 cwt. The lowest individual factory area yield was in England in 1961 and 1962 and in the Cupar area in 1963.

Sir J. Gilmour: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in general, these figures tend to illustrate the lower return per acre which sugar beet growers are getting, and will he take this into consideration at the Price Review?

Mr. Bence: Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance that he will not show the same attitude to this lower production of sugar beet per acre in Scotland as he showed to the use of coal in Scotland?

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what acreage of sugar beet for the 1964 crop has now been contracted with the Cupar factory of the British Sugar Corporation.

Mr. Noble: Offers from growers now total some 12,000 acres.

Sir J. Gilmour: In view of the considerable reduction on previous years which this figure shows—which I understand, is shared with other factory areas in England—will my right hon. Friend consult the Minister of Agriculture with a view to redressing this loss of acreage in this year's Price Review?

Mr. Noble: I think my hon. Friend is right. Probably the poor return last year has had some effect in diminishing the number of acres under the crop in Scotland. I shall have to consider with the Minister of Agriculture the best thing to do.

Winter Keep Scheme

Mr. Hoy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the concern of Scottish farmers regarding

the working of the Winter Keep Scheme; how many appeals have been made regarding the category into which their farms have been placed; and how many have been successful.

Mr. Noble: Yes, Sir. I have received representations from the Scottish National Farmers' Union on this matter and these will be further considered at the Annual Review.
As regards the second part of the Question, there have been 1,460 appeals in respect of farm classification. Of these 191 have been granted, 354 refused or withdrawn and 915 are under consideration. In addition, there have been 150 appeals under the material extent rule, of which 17 have been granted, 44 have been refused or withdrawn and 89 are under consideration.

Mr. Hoy: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that these figures express great dissatisfaction? In view of that, how could the Under-Secretary, in a Written Reply last week, give certain figures without taking into consideration these appeals? How could the Under-Secretary reach an approximate figure about what the subsidy would be under the new Board even if he did not know what the results of the appeals would be?

Mr. Noble: Quite frankly, one cannot give a firm figure until all the appeals are settled, but the House would find it rather boring if Ministers said that they could not give a firm figure until all the appeals were settled, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary did his best to help the House.

Mr. W. Baxter: Would the Secretary of State consider cutting down the categories from three to two under the winter feed scheme? This would obviate a great many applications being put into category A as it is usual for those in category A to wish to go into Category B. Will the right hon. Gentleman say what machinery is in operation to dispense justice in cases where people appeal against being put into a category?

Mr. Noble: In a great many cases there are inspections by independent panels of arbiters appointed by me. They report to me and my decision then has to be taken. In reply to the first


part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, the N.F.U., which has made representations to me on a number of points, has not asked me to consider that one.

Scottish Tourist Amenities Councils

Mr. Hoy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many organisations have been invited to submit nominations for membership of the proposed Scottish Tourist Amenities Councils; how many individual invitations have been sent out; and with what result.

Mr. Noble: Twelve organisations have been asked to submit nominations for consideration when appointments are made to the Council. I have not invited any individuals to serve.

Mr. Hoy: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many have replied saying that they would be willing to serve on a council of this kind? Will he at the same time tell us what his intentions are in regard to the Bill?

Mr. Noble: The second part of that supplementary question is clearly a different matter. Four associations have written to me suggesting nominations.

Stranraer-Ayr Road

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the approximate cost of improving the Stranraer to Ayr road, A.77, to trunk road standards.

Mr. Noble: Until we have completed the reconstruction of the trunk roads in Central Scotland which carry heavy industrial traffic, it will not be possible to contemplate comprehensive works on this road. No estimate of the possible cost has therefore been made.

Mr. Brewis: Is my right hon. friend aware that Ayrshire County Council has estimated that its section of this road would cost over half a million pounds? Would it not be better, as it will be very expensive to provide adequate alternative travel facilities, to keep the railway open and not to go into this rather expensive exercise?

Mr. Noble: I have to await the result of the T.U.C.C.'s consideration before

committing myself on the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. Certainly, south of Girvan the traffic is still fairly light for this road.

Mr. Brewis: Will my right hon. Friend say that the T.U.C.C. can take that sort of point into consideration?

Mr. Noble: I am afraid I must tell my hon. Friend that it cannot be so; it is considering solely hardship.

Mr. Manuel: Does the Secretary of State not recognise that this is causing growing resentment throughout Scotland? Certain lines are listed for closure or withdrawal of passenger services, and there is no blueprint for road improvement works. If this line is listed for withdrawal of passenger services, surely his Department has some idea of what the cost of road improvement would be?

Mr. Noble: I did not say that my Department had no idea. I said that it had not done a detailed study of the case. There is a considerable difference between the two.

Galloway and South-West Scotland

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will publish a development plan for Galloway and South-West Scotland on the lines of that produced for Central Scotland.

Mr. Noble: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) on 2nd December, my intention is that the Scottish Development Group should complete its surveys on the remaining regions of Scotland within the next year or 18 months. I cannot, however, at this stage forecast dates by which it will be possible to publish programmes based on any particular survey.

Mr. Brewis: Could my right hon. Friend say what will be included in the survey? In particular, will it include industrial development?

Mr. Noble: It will certainly consider industrial development, although obviously I cannot say what will be in it.

Mr. Ross: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many railway lines will be left in these outlying areas when these plans are made?

Airguns and Shotguns

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he has now completed his review of the effectiveness of the Air Guns and Shot Guns Act in its first year; and what further measures he proposes.

Mr. Noble: Scottish chief constables are of the general opinion that the Act has been of considerable assistance. They have suggested that more publicity should be given to its provisions and I am considering this.

Mr. Hannan: While appreciating that Answer, may I ask the Secretary of State to refer to the evidence which I sent to him last August concerning three attacks with these weapons involving children in my constituency? Will he bear that in mind in the consideration he is giving to this matter?

Mr. Noble: I shall certainly bear that in mind, and if other hon. Members have similar evidence I hope that they will write to me.

National Parks

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what areas have been designated as national parks; in what year they were so designated; and what proposals he has to establish facilities for recreation in them.

Mr. Noble: In 1948 five areas of high amenity were made subject to directions under the Town and Country Planning Act. These directions require local authorities to refer to me all applications for planning permission in these areas. In June 1962 I asked local planning authorities to survey and define in their development plans areas of great landscape value and to make proposals for recreational and tourist facilities. As the hon. Member will be aware, it has not been found necessary in Scotland to designate national parks in the English sense.

Mr. Hannan: As this Act was passed in 1949, does the Secretary of State not feel a sense of shame that all these years have passed without any action being taken by him to provide such facilities? Is there not an added sense of urgency in this matter in that no mention was

made of it in the recent White Paper, but it becomes now almost a necessity in view of the imminence of the General Election when so many hon. Members opposite will be put out to grass?

Mr. Noble: I have no sense of shame about this at all. Thirty of out 31 counties and 23 out of 26 Scottish burghs have made interim surveys. The ball is to some extent at their feet, but in the meantime Scotland has better access to lovely country than any other part of the United Kingdom.

Rheumatism

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, when the unit for the treatment of, and research into, rheumatological diseases in Glasgow will be in operation.

Mr. Noble: Late this summer, I hope.

Miss Herbison: Is the Secretary of State aware that this has been a very long awaited unit—since 1957? Will he ensure that it will be provided not later than the time he has stated?

Mr. Noble: I have the greatest hope that I shall not be disappointing the hon. Lady over this matter. In reply to a Question by her last year, I said that I hoped it would be ready in the latter half of 1964. I see no reason why it should not be.

Teachers

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to announce his decision on the proposed payment of £50 above the scale to teachers in certain areas of Scotland.

Mr. Noble: I intend to seek the views of the body which I am setting up to replace the National Joint Council. I shall announce my decision as soon as possible thereafter.

Miss Herbison: Will the Secretary of State give some idea when that will be? Is he not aware that in many of the areas where it is not proposed to give this extra £50 already there are added difficulties in attracting teachers who will not move from areas where they expect to get the £50? Does he not realise how urgent is a decision on this matter?

Mr. Noble: I shall make a decision about it quickly, but, as the hon. Lady knows, Lord Johnston's judgment, which declared the National Joint Council improperly constituted, was announced only a day or two before the National Joint Council was to give me its advice. It is important as well as courteous that I should get the views of the new National Joint Council which I shall set up. I shall set it up as soon as I can.

Miss Herbison: Cannot the Secretary of State give us any idea when he expects this Council to be set up? Can we have a definite date? When can we expect a report from it? Is he not aware that it was not the National Joint Council which suggested to him in the first place that he should make this payment to teachers in certain places outside Glasgow? That was a decision which the right hon. Gentleman himself took, and a decision which he should now himself rescind.

Mr. Noble: The National Joint Council is the body to which I refer all questions of salaries, and so I think that it would be discourteous not to give the Council the opportunity to comment.

POST OFFICE (HOUSEHOLD DELIVERY SERVICE)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. SWINGLER: To ask the Postmaster-General to what extent he is planning to offer to individual citizens facilities for the delivery of unaddressed and unstamped letters, postcards, and circulars to specified areas.

Mr. MASON: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will stipulate that the unaddressed household delivery service will not be used to circularise political propaganda by individuals, organisations and political parties.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): Mr. Speaker, with your permission, and that of the House, I will now answer Questions Nos. 96 and 98. Both Questions refer to the Household Delivery Service, the Regulations for which were laid before Parliament on 6th January.
In recent years the Post Office has failed to obtain much postal traffic which we should ordinarily have carried by second-class mail, owing to the use of outside agencies for the distribution of circulars and handbills.
From time to time the Post Office has considered how it could counter this by instituting a cheaper system for unaddressed mail. Such a proposal was urged upon me in the House by the former leading Opposition spokesman on Post Office affairs, the late Mr. Will Williams, as recently as March, 1963. For some time before then the General Secretary of the Union of Post Office Workers had been urging on me and my Department the need to increase postal revenues, and this service was one of the possibilities considered as a means to that end.
As the postal service is now in deficit, I myself was keen on this new and what I believe will be a profitable service, partly in the interests of the public who have to pay the cost of the postal service.
When the scheme was launched, it was made clear that postal packets which are obscene, indecent, grossly offensive or which advocate racial discrimination, are prohibited.
When, last week, I suspended deliveries, I did so out of courtesy to Parliament, knowing that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition wished to question it.
The question now arises whether the Post Office should refuse to handle political matter in this service and, if so, on what ground.
This question, of course, involves the principle of freedom of communications. If it is right to allow the delivery of political matter for 2½d.—or sometimes, indeed, for nothing—it is surely right to allow it through more cheaply. In principle, there is no difference whatever.
If the suggestion is that it is wrong for political propaganda to be delivered unenveloped, I can only say that open postcards can contain any amount of political propaganda. If the suggestion is that Post Office staff should not handle political propaganda, I can only say they do so now. Political slogans printed or labelled on envelopes are a commonplace in the post.
Moreover, it would be quite impossible to define political matter, and any attempt to discriminate between the users of the mail would lead to censorship of the mail. The practice in such Commonwealth and other countries as use this service is not to impose restrictions on political matter. I am, therefore, proposing to go ahead with the service.
In order to avoid overloading our staff, we intend to suspend this service as from the date of the dissolution of Parliament or, in any particular constituency, as from the time of the issue of a Writ in the case of a by-election.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Postmaster-General aware that the postal service is a public service? As this facility is to be offered to firms or citizens without them having to go to the bother of addressing the envelopes, or putting stamps on them, what steps has he taken to consult representatives of the public, besides representatives of his staff, on the question whether this service is required in this form? Is it not a serious matter, in relation to the Representation of the People Act, that this service should be used for any political purposes whatever?

Mr. Bevins: I think that the answer to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question is, "No, Sir".
Obviously, the Post Office made the most extensive inquiries amongst the public before this service was introduced. I can tell the House that the attitude of business as a whole is favourable to this service, and that many organisations wish to use it. It is perfectly true that the reaction of the general public so far has been mixed, but I do not think that it is generally appreciated that, if the Post Office does not deliver this material, other agencies will. In any case, if the Post Office delivers, the benefit financially will accrue to the public.

Mr. Mason: We on this side of the House take strong exception to the right hon. Gentleman hiding behind the cloak of one of our late hon. Friends and saying that he had advocated this service. For the record, is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that my late hon. Friend, Mr. Will Williams, on 25th March last, actually referred to—

bills, notices, rates notices from local authorities, notices from private commercial firms, from insurance firms …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1963; Vol. 674, c. 1007.]
not advertising and not political matter? Therefore, it was rather dishonest for the right hon. Gentleman to use that statement.
Is the Postmaster-General aware that we have now received information that in London, S.E.1, an application has been made by the British Union of Fascists to distribute racial literature in Deptford and New Cross? I hope that he will check that, also.
Is not the Postmaster-General further aware that this service is causing a great deal of disgruntlement among postmen, because samples, also, are allowed and they feel now that they are to be degraded to the level of detergent deliverers?
Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware, finally, that housewives, too, are upset that they are to have political literature and detergent samples dumped on their mats? I only hope that the right hon. Gentleman will note all this and take care that in what appears to be his craze for commercialism he does not tarnish the public service image of the Post Office.

Mr. Bevins: I think that the whole House will agree with me that my reference to the former Member for Manchester, Openshaw was a perfectly courteous and gentlemanly one. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] As the hon. Gentleman has quoted from what the former Member said, it is only fair to say that Mr. Williams did include in his remarks, when he was urging this service on me, notices from commercial firms, obviously having in mind advertising material.
Our instructions to head postmasters make it perfectly clear that we shall not accept for this service items which would give offence to the public at large, and we cite specifically circulars advocating racial discrimination. A copy of the material has to be submitted to the head postmaster before acceptance. This is a safeguard and a precaution.
I realise that there has been some feeling about this, but I still believe and hope that counsels of moderation will prevail.

Mr. Randall: As probably I am the only ex-postman in the House, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that I very much regret his reference, to the late hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw? Is he aware that that reference was grossly unfair and that I actually discussed this matter with the late W. R. Williams, arising from a conference decision, and that he told me that he did not put forward a system such as the Household Delivery Service? In view of this, will the Postmaster-General be good enough to withdraw his references to the late W. R. Williams?
While I am grateful that consultations have taken place—they will be useful—is it not a fact that so far, neither at national nor local level, has co-operation been possible? Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree, looking at this matter as a whole, that the real issue—apart from the matter of the content of political material in the literature—concerns emotions and fears which are arising among postmen who feel that, as a result of this new service, their craft, skills and responsibilities are likely to be downgraded? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman do something to avoid this happening, for have not the postmen a genuine and real grievance?

Mr. Bevins: I can only refer the House to the OFFICIAL REPORT of 25th March, 1963. I think that we can all see from that fairly clearly what the late hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw said—[AN. HON. MEMBER: "Why bring it up?"] I heard one right hon. Gentleman opposite say, "Why bring it up?". I brought it out because I wanted to make it clear—

Mr. G. Brown: He is dead. He cannot answer for himself.

Mr. Bevins: —to the House that the idea of a Household Delivery Service was not solely the conception of the Post Office. [Interruption.] I do not want to say anything provocative. I must say, in view of the comment just made by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), that the Executive of the Union of Postal Workers actually recommended this scheme to its conference 12 months ago.

Mr. Tiley: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the majority of people will applaud his decision to make this unprofitable part of the Post Office more profitable? Will he bear in mind that those who will benefit first will be the workers in the Post Office? Will he also remember that if we carry this objection to its logical conclusion Socialist engine drivers will begin to refuse to deliver Tory M.P.s to London?

Mr. Bevins: I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend has said. What I think has perhaps been overlooked in the House is that political propaganda and leaflets on an enormous scale pass through the post now and that some of them are visibly political propaganda. For example, the Labour Party—and I do not blame it—legitimately sought our approval to produce envelope slogan labels last year, and was granted permission. The slogan was, "Let's go with Labour and we'll get things done".

Mr. Wade: Looking at this from the point of view of the general public, as we must, will the Postmaster-General give an assurance that the ordinary mail services will not be delayed by the introduction of this door-to-door service? If, for example, there is a flood of literature from a large organisation, what effect would this have on the ordinary mail?

Mr. Bevins: We gave the most careful consideration, before this scheme was introduced, to making absolutely sure that the first-class and second-class mail received absolute priority and was not interfered with.

Mr. G. Brown: Has the Postmaster-General considered the extraordinary situation that he should now be proposing to allow the Post Office total freedom to distribute political literature when British Railways, for example, does not allow that same literature to be advertised on its property, and when television, the I.T.A., does not allow that kind of advertising to be done through its channels? Why should the Post Office now adopt a totally different approach from that of other Government Departments or semi-Government agencies?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this goes further than some leaflets which may seem convenient now to hon.


Gentlemen opposite; that it can apply to all kinds of leaflets getting past his definition of what is acceptable being issued openly by the Post Office—all kinds of contentious matter which could raise a great number of problems for the nation and for our people? Does he not think, therefore, that he should look at this again?
Is not his statement that any attempt to discriminate between users of the mail would lead to censorship not ruled out because he is already proposing to discriminate by laying down some things that should not happen? What he has decided, for a short-term advantage for his own party, is to allow through some leaflets which are agreeable to hon. Members opposite. The Government reduce all the standards of everything they touch for their own advantage.

Mr. Bevins: Under this scheme leaflets, circulars and postal packets are treated in the same way as any other postal communications. If it is right in principle to allow political matter through our first-class and second-class mails—and I assume that no one would argue that that is wrong—that principle should equally be respected in the new service. This principle is and always has been observed in the G.P.O. It is observed by two Commonwealth and seven European countries which run precisely this sort of service in their own territories. In any case, nobody can define political matter without censorship of the mails. The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) referred to the position of the I.T.A. The I.T.A. and the B.B.C. are required by the Government broadly to be impartial in the handling of political matter.
Equally, the Post Office will take any party's literature under this system. If the suggestion is that this service gives one party an advantage over the other, it completely ignores the fact that this service is cheaper than any existing postal service and, therefore, creates a facility more likely to be used all round.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate this matter without a Question before the House.

STEEL COMPANY OF WALES (INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE)

3.49 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. J. B. Godber): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on the dispute at the Steel Company of Wales.
As the House will know, the Executive Council of the Amalgamated Engineering Union yesterday put forward a new formula as a basis for the resolution of the dispute between members of the union and the Steel Company of Wales. I saw representatives of the company last night, and arranged for them to meet officers of the union at the Ministry of Labour this morning.
Following this meeting, I saw Sir William Carron and Mr. Cartwright, and they informed me that they had reached full understanding on the proposals to be submitted to the A.E.U. members at Port Talbot on Saturday morning.
I am sure that the House will join with me in hoping that these developments will lead to a settlement of this dispute.

Mr. Gunter: I join with the Minister in saying that the whole House will welcome this encouraging turn. I feel quite confident, knowing Port Talbot, that the Minister's efforts will be very fruitful on Saturday morning.
There may be difficulties of which I am ignorant, but I should have thought that in this situation the meeting of the men could have been held earlier than on Saturday morning—that, possibly, they could have been got together tomorrow morning—so that any preparatory work necessary for the reopening of the works could have taken place. Would the Minister care to comment?

Mr. Godber: I quite understand the hon. Member's reason for putting that point. I am sure that he will appreciate that this is really a matter for the members of the A.E.U. themselves. I do not think that it would be proper for me to comment further.

Mr. J. Morris: May I, on behalf of my constituents, also thank the Minister and his officials for their efforts during what have been, for many of us, very


anxious weeks? Is the Minister aware how glad I am that the A.E.U. and the company have reached a full understanding; and that I wish the A.E.U. leaders well at Saturday's meeting? I express my confidence that the men will endorse the machinery which has been devised. If that happens, when will work be resumed, first, for the A.E.U. members, and, secondly, for the process workers and other non-A.E.U. men involved?

Mr. Godber: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his kind words. I am hopeful that this meeting will lead to a resumption of work. I am sure that the hon. Member will appreciate that, in the case of works of this magnitude, the question of resumption of work is something that has to be dealt with, and be the subject of discussion, between the two sides.
I do not think that I can add to what was said by the leaders of the two sides this morning, when they referred to this matter. Their manner has been one of somewhat restrained optimism.

Mr. I. Davies: The right hon Gentleman's statement will be welcomed with great relief and satisfaction in my constituency, which has been vitally affected. His statement is the culminatiton of many discussions. As one of the Welsh Members concerned, may I express appreciation for the courtesy extended to us by the Minister throughout this trouble? Many lessons can be learned from this dispute, but the first priority is the return to work. I hope that the vital meeting of the men later this week will decide in favour of acceptance of the proposals.

Mr. Godber: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that we all endorse his words. I take note of what he says about long-term thinking. Once the dispute has been resolved, I am sure that

we will all want to learn the lessons that can be drawn from it.

Sir W. Robson Brown: I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on his successful efforts in this case. They will be met with relief not only in Wales, but throughout the country. This was an unfortunate and regrettable incident, and I hope that, as soon as possible, reason and sanity will be brought to bear—

Mr. Speaker: Order. On these important occasions, we must remember that what is permitted is a few questions, otherwise we drift into speeches and get into difficulty.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I thank the Minister and my hon. and right hon. Friends. I think that we all have had something to contribute to this result. If agreement is reached, can the Minister reach a decision about when the dispute comes to an end, and not leave it until Saturday? That would not only facilitate ending the dispute, but also enable those will then be unemployed to get unemployment benefit. Will he consider that point?

Mr. Godber: I do not think that I can say more than I have said about that matter. We must leave it to those concerned. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kinds words, but I do not seek any credit; I give full credit to those on both sides for the statesmanship that they have shown.

BILL PRESENTED

BRITISH NATIONALITY

Bill to facilitate the resumption or renunciation of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, presented by Mr. Brooke, supported by Mr. Sandys, the Attorney-General, Mr. Woodhouse, and Miss Mervyn. Pike; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 69.]

HIGHWAYS (STRAYING ANIMALS) BILL

3.55 p.m.

Sir Barnett Janner: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the payment of compensation for injury or damage caused by animals straying on the highways.
Danger to life and limb is becoming more and more intense from day to day on our roads. Last Friday, the House discussed some of the tragic consequences of failure to cope adequately with the problem, and the necessity of devising ways and means of safety for road users as far as is humanly possible. It is estimated that, in the not-too-distant future, the number of cars on the roads will exceed the number of men, women and children now living in the country.
Whatever may be pleaded for failure, owing to oversight or miscalculation, unacceptable though it may be, to make the necessary provision for coping with the vast increase of road traffic, no excuse whatever is available or permissible for those who have failed, and still fail, to heed conclusions arrived at by so eminent and responsible a committee as that set up to consider the law of civil liability for damage done by animals, and to make recommendations. The chairman of the committee was the Lord Chief Justice of England, and I believe that the other members were also distinguished lawyers. It is now 11 years since that committee reported, and made its recommendations. So far, the recommendations in respect of the matter of which I am now speaking, have been ignored.
Strictures by many learned judges, such as Lord Donovan, have so far fallen on deaf ears. The House will remember that in the case of Ellis v. Johnson, reported in The Times on 4th December, 1962, Lord Donovan, who is well known to us in this House, and who was a Member for a considerable time, said:
There have been previous judicial pleas for Parliament to look at the law relating to animals. Government time is understandably very crowded, but a Private Member's success in the Ballot would perform a public service if he could introduce a Bill to regulate liability for damage by animals.

Lord Donovan added that the heart of the new legislation which was required could be found in the report of the Lord Chancellor's Committee, published in 1952.
As far as back as 1961, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) endeavoured to get the House to pass a Bill to cope with the situation, but his highly commendable Measure was frustrated by failure of Government support. Meanwhile, justification for the immediate change in our law is evidenced by the constant and unnecessary killing and maiming of human beings and cattle.
The Bill that I am applying for leave to introduce is intended to provide for payment of compensation to the injured persons or relatives of the persons killed in accidents in which straying cattle were involved. This will, undoubtedly, act as deterrent, and impose caution and care upon the owners of fields or cattle—

Sir James Duncan: Cattle only?

Sir B. Janner: I am talking about the horse, the pony, cows and cattle.
As the law now stands, the owners of straying cattle that have caused these calamities are not liable to pay compensation to the victims of their lack of consideration for the safety of others. Gates in fields containing cattle can be left open, and the boundaries of those fields left unfenced, without the owner being liable for any damage which cattle straying from those fields cause when they stray on the highways. This applies if a moving vehicle collides with such cattle, causing destruction of life and limb to hapless drivers or passengers.
It is only in the event of the owner of domestic animals, such as horses, ponies, cattle or sheep, deliberately bringing the animal on to the highway or bringing an animal which is known by him to be vicious that he may be compelled to pay compensation to a person for damages caused by such an animal on a highway.
The Report to which I have referred—the Committee on the Law of Civil Liability for Damage done by Animals—states, under the heading, "Duty to Prevent Escape":
Dealing, first, with escape on to the highway, a series of decisions have established


beyond question that the common law imposes no duty on the owner or occupier of land adjoining the highway to prevent animals escaping from it on to the highway. In thus stating the law in Brackenborough v. Spalding U.D.C., Lord Wright described the rule as modern and its limits as still uncertain:
In other words, it applies at the present time.
It was reluctantly applied by the Court of Appeal in Hughes v. Williams, where Lord Greene, Master of the Rolls, said: 'The rule appears to be ill adapted to modern conditions. A farmer who allows his cow to stray through a gap in his hedge on to his neighbour's land, where it consumes a few cauliflowers, is liable in damages to his neighbour, but if, through a similar gap in the hedge, it strays on to the road and causes the overturning of a motor omnibus, with death or injury to 30 or 40 people, he is under no liability at all. I scarcely think that that is a satisfactory state of affairs in the twentieth century.'
I quote further:
The rule was, however, subsequently and emphatically affirmed by the House of Lords in Searle v. Wallbank: 'On any view we think it desirable that the rule should be modified to meet modern conditions of traffic where a road runs through enclosed country. It is remarkable that, whereas Section 25 of the Highway Act. 1864, imposes a penalty on the owner of cattle "found straying on or lying about any highway or across any part thereof or by the sides thereof except in such parts of any highway as pass over any common or waste or unenclosed land", the law gives no remedy to a person who is injured as a consequence. As already stated, we think liability should depend on negligence, and accordingly recommend that an occupier should be under a duty to take reasonable care that cattle or poultry lawfully on land in his occupation do not escape therefrom on to the highway, and that the occupier should be responsible for all damage caused to persons or chattels (damage to realty being already covered by the action of cattle trespass) by cattle or poultry which escape owing to a breach of that duty whether or not acting in accordance with their ordinary nature;'
This is not the time to go into the differences between animals vicious by nature and animals of a domestic nature, but I am sure that hon. Members know the difference and how they are dealt with.
As I related to the House when I was given leave to introduce a similar Bill, I was deeply distressed when I heard from Mr. and Mrs. Woodword, of Houghton-on-the-Hill, Leicester, that their only child had been killed by straying horses. She was a young woman of 23 and was engaged in the important, humane work of teaching backward children. The House can imagine the anguish which befell these stricken parents. They were, and are, determined

to devote their lives—they have told me so—to preventing as far as they can experiences of so heartbreaking a character befalling other people.
I have received numerous messages from organisations such as the British Cycle and Motor Cycle Industries Association Ltd., and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and from individuals, deploring the lack of a provision for compensation and giving a very large number of examples of serious injuries which have been sustained in accidents where the victims have had no possibility of returning to their normal work. For example, one communication reads:
The village 'Bobby' of Alnmouth, Northumberland, was gravely injured ten weeks ago when his motor cycle struck a stray lamb. P.C. William Rumbold, the 'Bobby', suffered a broken jaw, broken arm and fractured skull and lay critically ill for weeks in Newcastle General Hospital. He is improving but still not fully conscious, and is paralysed down his right side.
Numerous other examples have been sent to me which I could give to the House. In my own constituency alone, in a very short time about 90 people have signed a petition which calls upon the Government to deal with this matter, and in the district within 20 or 30 miles radius of Leicester over 600 people have signed a similar petition. The House can well imagine what would be the position if an attempt were made throughout the country to get people to sign a petition of this nature. I am sure that it would be a vast petition. What has happened in North-West Leicester and the surrounding districts in the agitation of the people is undoubtedly happening in other parts of the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir B. Janner, Mr. Probert, Mr. Morris, Mr. Deer, Mr. Grey, Mr. Loughlin, Mr. Denis Howell, Mr. Marsh, Mr. Swain, Mr. Hunter, and Mr. Wainwright.

HIGHWAYS (STRAYING ANIMALS)

Bill to provide for the payment of compensation or injury or damage caused by animals straying on the highways, presented accordingly and read the First time to be read a Second time upon Friday, 14th February, and to be printed. [Bill 70.]

Orders of the Day — ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a valuable and necessary Bill, but I do not think that it is likely to prove highly contentious. It is necessary because, Parliament having passed the London Government Act last Session, which created a new Greater London area, it becomes imperative to adjust the structure of the system for the administration of justice in that new area to the new local government geography and pattern which the Act has created. That is Part I.
Part I will also secure advances in other fields which have no connection with the London Government Act, notably the implementation of the Aarvold Report on Magistrates' Courts in London, and that part of the Morison Report on the Probation Service which deals with the probation service in London. We owe a great deal to the hard work of each of these Committees, which produced those two valuable Reports.
I will deal, first, with those Clauses which flow from the London Government Act. The intention is that they will come into force on 1st April, 1965, the same date as the Act. This Bill contains transitional provisions which will enable the various bodies with administrative duties to begin their work before 1st April, 1965 in making the necessary preparations to ensure a smooth transition on that date.
The Government have gone to considerable trouble to try to secure as wide an agreement as possible over these adaptations in the machinery for the administration of justice. Away back in the autumn of 1962, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and I began consulting the interested authorities and bodies in the area about the changes which we thought would be necessary in this machinery, and in the light of the replies which we had from

them we made modifications in our original plan. The first and most obvious step which had to be taken was to extend the area of the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court to coincide with the area of Greater London. It already covers the greater part of this area, but not the whole.
This is done in Clause 1, with its picturesque reference to
… oyer and terminer and gaol delivery …
and so forth. At the same time, the Government have taken the opportunity to bring forward a useful reform in the system of sessions of that court, a reform which I know has been in the minds of the authorities there for some time.
At present, the Central Criminal Court is required by statute to hold 12 sessions a year, each lasting about a month. It is felt by those who are closely concerned that this leads to excessive rigidity in the timetable of the court. It can sometimes mean that cases which are ready for trial cannot be tried, simply and solely for the technical reason that a case can be tried only in the session to which it has been committed. It seems absurd that justice should be delayed in this way.
The Government have, therefore, adopted the suggestion that, instead of being required to hold 12 sessions, the court should be required to hold a minimum of four sessions. This provision is in Clause 1(2) and Schedule I. This change will not mean any fewer sittings of the court. On the contrary, the increasing pressure of business and the extension of the area of jurisdiction mean more court rooms.
The City Corporation, which bears the whole capital cost of the Old Bailey without any contribution from the other authorities, is taking steps to provide more court rooms. It has also promoted a Bill to provide for additional judges. This technical change from 12 sessions to four sessions a year will enable some cases which now have to be delayed to be heard earlier.
For the purposes of commissions of the peace, quarter sessions and magistrates' courts, the Government put forward the plan of dividing Greater London into five commission areas. These are set out in Clause 2. I think that hon. Members representing Middlesex


constituencies will welcome the change that was made in another place whereby the North-West London area is to be called the Middlesex area. If anybody can suggest satisfactory names for the other areas, names which are not misleading or artificial, I should be very willing to consider them.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and I considered whether it would be possible simply to preserve the status quo in the matter of magistrates' courts and quarter sessions as some people urged upon us, but we came to the conclusion that it was not feasible. The Greater London Council will be responsible for financing all the courts, except the magistrates' courts in inner London, and it is hardly possible to adopt any plan which bases court administration otherwise than on the area of the Greater London Council or sub-divisions of that area.
It would have been practicable to treat Greater London as one unit for the purposes of the administration of justice, as we have treated it for the purposes of the lieutenancy and the sheriff in Clauses 18 and 19. Indeed, we originally thought that that might be the best plan to have one unit. However, it became quite clear that this did not commend itself to those involved. I hope that the House will agree that what we now propose represents the best solution to the problem.
Our chief aim has been to make only those changes which are necessary, so as not to dissipate the experience which has been built up over the years by the justices who sit in and around London. Each of the five commission areas will be treated broadly as a county. Each will have its own commission of the peace, quarter sessions, magistrates' courts and magistrates' courts committee. Somewhat special arrangements must be made for inner London. I will refer to them in a few minutes. The general position, as I have described it, is set out in Clauses 2 to 8.
The courts of quarter sessions for each commission area will be presided over by full-time paid chairmen or deputy-chairmen. The Bill gives the Lord Chancellor power to direct that the chairman or deputy-chairman shall sit alone, except in dealing with committals and

appeals from juvenile courts. This does not mean that the lay justices are to be wholly excluded from quarter sessions work. This is only a reserve power, and we hope that the lay justices, as time goes on, will play an increasing part in the work of quarter sessions.
One innovation which the Bill introduces is the power to appoint county court judges as deputy-chairmen of quarter sessions. This is in Clause 5, and it is based on a recommendation of the Streatfeild Report on the Business of the Criminal Courts. Concentration on criminal work exclusively may be monotonous. To add some variety to the judicial work may well increase the efficiency of the courts.
Before dealing with the inner London magistrates' courts, I want to refer to Clause 18 which deals with the lientenancy. That Clause provides that there shall be one lord lieutenant for Greater London and that, in addition to the vice-lieutenant and the deputy-lieutenants, the lord lieutenant shall be empowered to appoint assistant lieutenants to whom he can delegate certain of his functions. This is an exceptional provision to deal with a rather exceptional situation. Clause 19 provides for one high sheriff and gives him power to appoint an under-sheriff for each of the five commission areas.

Mr. Walter Edwards: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what will be the position of the present deputy-lieutenants of the County of London?

Mr. Brooke: When the County of London passes out of existence we make a fresh start.
The inner London magistrates' courts are provided for in Clauses 9 to 17. As I think most hon. Members know, there have always been two systems of magistrates' courts operating side by side in the County of London. There are the metropolitan stipendiary magistrates' courts, which deal with the bulk of the criminal work. Then there are also the lay justices of the County of London, sitting in their petty sessional courts and exercising a jurisdiction limited by Orders made by the Secretary of State under the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949, and dealing mainly with cases of the kind prosecuted by local authorities.
In addition to sitting in the petty


sessional courts, where they have only this limited jurisdiction, lay justices are increasingly sitting in metropolitan magistrates' courts to help in relieving the very great pressure that has built up in these important courts. When they sit in metropolitan courts they have a far wider range of jurisdiction. It has been thought for a long time that this dual system is wrong. In 1937, a Departmental Committee recommended an integration of the two systems. This presents quite a number of legal and practical problems, because at present each system is served separately by its own clerks. The metropolitan clerks and staff are appointed by me, whereas the lay courts staff are appointed by the London Magistrates' Courts Committee. Each system has its own separate courthouses and geographical areas of jurisdiction.
In 1962, the Departmental Committee on Magistrates' Courts in London, under the chairmanship of Judge Aarvold, which had been set up to examine the practical problems of integration, reported on the measures that would be necessary to give effect to the plan. Clauses 9 to 17 give effect to the recommendations of that Report.
The main result is that there will no longer be two systems in inner London, but one. The lay justices in general will have the same range of jurisdiction as the metropolitan magistrates. The metropolitan magistrates will, of course, continue to sit alone. There will be one common staff instead of two sets of staff, and when we have made more progress with long-term building plans, the magistrates' courts in inner London divisions will work in the same courthouses.
Clause 9 merges the two separate jurisdictions, and Clauses 13 to 17 deal with the administration of the integrated system. The Aarvold Committee recognised that inner London presented administrative problems different from those of any other area in England and Wales, and that, in view of these, the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State would have to retain a rather higher measure of control over the system than they have over court administration elsewhere; but the Committee wanted the administration to be brought as closely

as possible into line with that of magistrates' courts in the country as a whole.
The Committee also recommended that the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, who, up till now, has been responsible for finance and building for the metropolitan courts, should assume the same responsibilities for the integrated court system. The Bill gives effect to these recommendations.
Clause 13 establishes a committee of magistrates formed of metropolitan and lay magistrates, and Clauses 15 and 16 set out its functions. The determination of the number and grading of the staff and their conditions of service are to be the responsibility of the Committee, subject to the approval of the Home Secretary. Otherwise, the functions of the committee of magistrates, such as the appointment of the justices' clerks and other staff, are very much the same as those of a magistrates' courts committee in the rest of the country.
Before I leave this part of the Bill, I should like to say a word about the pressure of business in the metropolitan magistrates' courts, and what is being done about it. The delay which this pressure has been causing is something that none of us can regard with complacency, and a great deal has been done recently to relieve the situation. Last year, a new courthouse, with three courtrooms, was opened in the South-Western Division.
Next month, we plan to open two more courtrooms in Wells Street, north of Oxford Street, for dealing with summonses, as there will be no cells there, and these will be followed by two more shortly after. In addition, extra accommodation has been provided at certain other courts. If we find that we need still further courtrooms, we must take steps to get them. A new domestic proceedings court has been opened in East London, and the jurisdiction of the lay justices in the petty sessional divisions has been extended to enable them to take some cases which would otherwise have to go to the metropolitan magistrates' courts.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has increased the number of stipendiary magistrates already, and Clause 10 of the Bill enables further increases to be made up


to the number of 40. My right hon. and learned Friend has also increased substantially the number of lay magistrates in the County of London.
I should like to make special reference to the effect of the changes in the Bill on the clerks and staff of the present metropolitan magistrates' courts and of the lay justices' courts in the County of London, who will be merged under the Bill. The conditions of service of these two elements are at present entirely different. It will be one of the first tasks of the committee of magistrates to decide, subject to my approval, whether the future terms should be based on those of the existing metropolitan staff or on those of the existing lay justices' staff.
The latter terms are the same as those which apply in the rest of the country. This will be a difficult decision, and, like all mergers of this kind, this merger will undoubtedly place some strain on the staff. My Department is in touch with the representatives of both elements of the staff, and we are discussing with them in particular the kind of provision that ought to be made for the protection of the interests of the existing staff. I have it in mind to move certain Amendments in Committee for the further protection of staff interests.
Clause 21 of the Bill deals with the arrangements for the probation service in Greater London, and, in particular, inner London. The Departmental Committee on the Probation Service, under the chairmanship of Sir Ronald Morison, recommended a change in the administration in inner London. At present, the London probation service is administered directly by the Home Office.
On the other hand, the probation services in the rest of the country are managed by probation committees composed of justices. The Morison Committee recommended that a similar system should be adopted in London. I do not dissent from that, I think it a good thing to assimilate the London administration to that of England and Wales generally. Clause 21(2) provides for the setting up of a probation committee for inner London.
As regards the financing of the probation service in inner London, the Bill proposes a change from the recommendation

of the Morison Report, which was that the probation service should be financed by the local authority as it is in the rest of the country. At present in London, like the metropolitan magistrates' courts, it is financed by the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District. Since magistrates' courts in inner London are to be financed by the Receiver, it seems to me right that the probation service also should be so financed.
Probation officers are just as much officers of the court as the staff of the justices' clerk, and I think that it would be a mistake to have two different systems of finance for two bodies having so much in common. Under either scheme the money would, of course, come partly from the rates and partly from Exchequer grant, as it does in the rest of the country. The proportion is, in fact, near enough half and half.
Part II of the Bill deals with England and Wales generally and not simply with Greater London. In this part of the Bill, we have seized the opportunity to introduce a number of reforms which I hope that hon. Members who are concerned with magistrates' courts will recognise to be valuable. The first of these reforms is in Clauses 27 and 28 and deals with the cases, which are few, when a justice or clerk is sued in respect of some act done in the execution of his duty.
The Justices of the Peace Act, 1949, made certain provision for indemnification out of local funds when this happened, but this provision has been recognised to be inadequate in a number of respects, particularly in that it applies only to justices and not to their clerks and staff, and does not give desirable safeguards.
A working party has gone into this, and Clauses 27 and 28 give broad effect to its recommendations. Clause 27 deals with the acts of justices and their clerks outside quarter sessions and provides indemnity from local funds. Clause 28 deals with prerogative proceedings in the High Court against magistrates and with acts done at quarter sessions and makes rather simpler provision for indemnity out of Exchequer funds. As I have said, these cases occur seldom, but it is clearly right to make proper and just provision for them.
We also propose the payment of subsistence allowances to justices. At present, justices are only entitled to be reimbursed for travelling expenses and night lodging expenses. I think that this provision in Clause 30 will be generally welcomed.
I do not think that I need comment at this stage on any of the other Clauses; they deal with relatively minor but useful matters. There is, however, one other subject which I should like to mention before I sit down. Under the Police Bill, which is now before a Standing Committee, the police authority in a county is no longer to be the standing joint committee.
Virtually the only other function of the standing joint committee is to decide questions about court accommodation for quarter sessions. It has been represented to me—and I am bound to say that I am inclined to agree with this view—that it is rather absurd that a statutory standing joint committee should continue in existence for this residual purpose alone when it is no longer concerned with police matters. I am, therefore, considering the idea of transferring the function of dealing with quarter sessions accommodation to the county councils in such a way as to ensure that the interests of quarter sessions are not jeopardised. This is a possible Amendment to the Bill which we may consider further in Committee.
To sum up, the Bill not only makes various necessary provisions in judicial administration following on the London Government Act, but also proposes a number of useful reforms in court administration which, I think, may be generally welcomed by hon. Members. It had a friendly and almost uncontroversial reception in another place, and I hope that the House will wish to see it reach the Statute Book.

4.31 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: In my experience, it is not often that Home Secretaries receive compliments in this House, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman has rendered a service by telling us so succinctly and shortly about the very considerable changes which the Bill makes.
The right hon. Gentleman began by saying that he did not think that the

Bill would arouse much excitement. I think that he is right. It is curious that a Measure introduced in Parliament which affects millions of people in an aspect of their lives of great importance, namely, their contact or conflicts with the judicial system, should be, at first sight at any rate, so wholly devoid of interesting topics of controversy.
Speaking from the Opposition benches on a Bill of this sort, I am tempted to say simply no more than that the right hon. Gentleman has told us what the Bill is about, that we could, if we read it, verify what he has said, that what he has said seems to be reflected in the context of the Bill, and that this is obviously a Bill eminently suited to be discussed and picked to pieces minutely in Committee, and then sit down; and I am very much tempted to do that.
I have examined the Bill to see whether I can find in its provisions something which can be said to display a glimmer of principle and of purely human interest. It is a very important Bill, and I speak with no disrespect of its provisions in saying what I have said. Obviously, it is a necessary Bill and I do not suppose that any hon. Member would suggest that we should reject it. Our approach, no doubt, will be very similar to that of the noble Lords in another place.
When I scan the Bill to see what matters may be suitable for discussion on Second Reading, I find one which evokes almost a sentimental echo. It concerns the composition of the judges in the Central Criminal Court. The ex officio judges, as we know and can see from the Schedule to the Bill, include the Lord Mayor of the City and the aldermen. They do not sit. Their services are ceremonial. They lend great dignity and colour to the court. The court, which is of haunting and ancient memories, distressing memories for many of those compelled to resort to it, is, perhaps, particularly suitable to be garnished by the presence of that which is traditional, that which history has hallowed and that which possibly cannot be justified on grounds other than that there is something picturesque and reminiscent of the centuries which have rolled by to be found in it.
It was in those circumstances that noble Lords in another place discussed an Amendment to the effect that the chairman and vice-chairman of the Greater London Council should be made ex officio judges of the Central Criminal Court. The argument was that to be an ex officio judge was to assume a status of dignity and that the presence of these gentlemen would enhance the standing of the council and would be received with acclamation by members of the council. That was the argument for the Amendment, and it was pointed out, with not inconsiderable force, that it was perhaps anomalous that the chairman and vice-chairman of the Greater London Council should not be ex officio judges of the Central Criminal Court and that neither group of judges would sit but that both would lend dignity by their presence and association with the court.
It is easy in our arrangements to point to anomalies. The life of our great community is crammed full of anomalies. Some of them are tiresome. The majority of them militate against efficiency. It is difficult—and no doubt we will wish to consider this further in Committee—to find one's way between the views put forward by the Lord Chancellor and others in another place, that tradition hallowed the association of the Lord Mayor and aldermen and that it would be difficult and rather invidious to break with that tradition, but that the chairman and vice-chairman of the Greater London Council, which will be responsible for between 8 and 9 million of the population of London, should not be ex officio members of the court.
I have referred to this topic because it seems to me one which evokes a human interest, but I do not seek to offer a positive opinion of my own about it. I draw attention to it because, no doubt, when the Bill is considered in Committee, hon. Members will think it appropriate to examine and discuss what should be the rôle of tradition in our life, how far it should extend, and whether we should welcome, accept and endorse it, or try, when and as we can, to sweep it away in the interests of rigid efficiency. Those are matters of balance which evoke emotions and which perhaps we cannot adjudicate on in a spirit of complete rationalism and logic. I hope

that I am not showing undue cowardice by leaving it. It is obviously a matter on which the balance is very even.
I turn to a perhaps more practical point relating to Surrey Quarter Sessions. I suppose that the Bill is bound to be crammed full of local individual difficulties. I select one which has been brought to my notice as one of the sort of difficulties which is bound to be thrown up and which, at some time, some administration must face. The difficulty arises in this way. It is said that, under the London Government Act, Surrey Quarter Sessions will lose about a quarter of its criminal work, which will be transferred to what is rather clinically called the south-western area of Greater London—and I sympathise with the Home Secretary in his hope to find a more cosy and warm-sounding name.
There will be a separate court, a separate clerk of the peace, a separate staff and separate buildings to house the court. The argument is—and it can be well understood—that the expense which will be consequently incurred will not bring any corresponding benefit or advantage to the administration of justice.
I put the difficulty, without seeking to resolve it, as an example of the many difficulties which inevitably will be thrown up when and if this major rearrangement in consequence of the London Government Act is brought about in April, 1965, and which will, in one way or another, have to be straightened out. Therefore, having pointed to it, I leave it for others to seek to disentangle if and when the occasion arises in 1965. I see that the Home Secretary shakes his head both gloomily and forebodingly about that—rather, he was nodding, not shaking his head.

Mr. Brooke: I was not aware of doing either.

Sir F. Soskice: I must not interpret the right hon. Gentleman's mind through involuntary motions of his body which he did not intend to be significant.
The next point to which I would like to refer arises directly from the Bill and involves, perhaps, something more of major underlying principle which is more suitable to a Second Reading debate


than to Committee. I refer to Clause 12(3), which transfers from the Home Secretary's Department to the Lord Chancellor the function of selecting those justices of the commission who are to be the chairmen and members of juvenile courts in the Greater London area.
The selection of justices for that purpose is a function which for London is at present vested in the Home Secretary. Outside London, it is the justices of the commission themselves who select from among their numbers those justices who should form juvenile courts—justices who, because of their interests and their special qualities, may be thought to be more suitable to do that kind of work. There is an obvious rather odd anomaly between the practice in the provinces and that in London. However, rightly or wrongly, it is now the Home Secretary who does that. The Bill proposes that is should be done not by the Home Secretary, but by the Lord Chancellor.
The point of principle which was discussed in another place, and which this House may wish to consider, is as follows. The Home Secretary has already parted with the function of appointing recorders and stipendiary magistrates. It used to be part of his jurisdiction, but it no longer is. Now, it is proposed to take from the Home Secretary the further function of appointing other judicial officers. The justification which was put forward for the change in another place was that it is desirable that the appointment of judicial officers should be designedly separated from other functions which were of a penal or security character and that in those circumstances they should all be concentrated in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. They are not at the moment entirely concentrated in him. It is not I think on his recommendation that Lords Justices are appointed, but that, perhaps, is neither here nor there.
There is an argument the other way which somewhat appeals to me. It is said that in this country we do not like the idea of a Ministry of Home Security. We do not like the idea of a Minister who is responsible primarily and almost solely for the police, for the supervision of the carrying out of punishments of various sorts,

for looking after those who have strayed, or are likely to stray, and for doing the rather unpleasant tasks associated with the broad concept of security.
It is said that if, having taken away from the Home Secretary the function of appointing recorders and stipendiary magistrates, we go still further and strip the right hon. Gentleman of his rather human function of saying which among the justices in London are to function in juvenile courts, we would be going a little too far in the direction of making him rather a Minister of Home Security and that we should not do it.
Again, the arguments are somewhat finely balanced. The right hon. Gentleman still has extremely wide functions. His is a very responsible Department. He has a large measure of responsibility in the matter of children, and so on, and perhaps we would not recognise the present Home Secretary—and, I hope, none of his successors—in the rôle of the rather formidable continental Minister of Home Security whom we justly fear and whose presence we would not welcome in our administrative and governmental arrangements. That, no doubt, is a matter which it may be desirable further to consider in Committee.
A point which has been raised and which, perhaps, one would wish to discuss on Second Reading is one which has long been in the minds of those who are interested in the position of justices and which was raised in the Report of the Royal Commission on Justices of the Peace, which reported in 1948. At the moment, amongst the ex officio members of the commission are the chairmen of county and district councils.
It was strongly argued by a noble Lord who put forward an Amendment that they should no longer be ex officio members of the commission and that in a large number of cases they have not had the experience of the work on the bench which is required to enable them to be good justices of the peace, but that in any event if, independently of their function as chairmen of county and district councils, they have shown themselves suitable for appointment, they would in the ordinary way be recommended to the Lord Chancellor by the lord lieutenant and the advisory committee. Why, therefore, it was asked,


even in the Report of the Royal Commission, should they, simply because they were chairmen of those councils, ex officio be justices of the peace.
A distinguished predecessor of the present Lord Chancellor, Lord Jowitt, opposed a change on the lines which Lord Airedale in another place proposed by his Amendment. The former Lord Chancellor said that frequently he discovered the value of a holder of the office of chairman of one of those councils as a justice only by learning how he actually did his work when sitting on the bench as a justice during the period of his office. His office might be for only one year or it might last from year to year, but frequently excellent justices came to the Lord Chancellor's notice through the recommendation of the lord lieutenant simply and solely because a person had been seen to work well on the bench because he was enabled to do so as an ex officio justice of the peace qua chairman of the council and, therefore, it was valuable, and it added greatly to the resources from which the Lord Chancellor could select, to have chairmen of county and district councils as ex officio justices. Lord Jowitt opposed the change. The present Lord Chancellor opposed it on the same grounds.
That is another conundrum. Speaking for myself, I feel very much impressed by the arguments of the late Lord Jowitt and the present Lord Dilhorne on that topic. Without further consideration of this difficult and rather prickly problem, that is the way in which my own view would at present go.
The Home Secretary told us today about the steps which he is taking in Clauses 9 to 17 for the purpose of integrating in the inner London area the two systems of the lay justices and the stipendiary magistrates. I have always thought that there was something unreasonable in the jurisdiction in the lay justices being limited in the way that it is under the Act of 1949—an Act which, I confess, was passed when another Government were in office, although, no doubt, for very good reason.
I cannot remember whether I spoke on it; I hope not. At least, on reflection in later and more mature years, it seems difficult to justify the distinction. I am glad that the Government have taken

this opportunity, so far as possible, to remove what is an unreasonable and somewhat invidious distinction and one which, I should have thought, was an obstacle in the way of a much more efficient integrated service. I am glad that the Home Secretary has done that.
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman this question, about which I found myself in doubt when going through the Bill. Clauses 9 and on deal, as the right hon. Gentleman says, with what is described in Clause 2 as inner London—the inner London boroughs referred to in subsection (1,a). But I cannot find anywhere in the Bill any provision which seems to deal with the position of petty sessional divisions and courts in what is described in Clause 2 as outer London—those commission areas specified in sub-paragraphs (b) to (e).
It is possible that, by implication, the Bill deals with them in the sense that each of them has a separate commission of its own and is a county for a number of purposes. Perhaps that has the automatic effect of reorganising the petty sessional jurisdictional system in these counties of the outer London area or, at any rate, giving power to effect reorganisation without further legislative change But I do not quite understand what is happening in the commission areas outside the inner area, and I would be grateful if the Solicitor-General would say something about this so that we may know how the Bill will work in the outer London areas.
A provision I very much welcome is that contained in Clause 5, which enables county court judges to be appointed to sit as deputy chairmen of quarter sessions in the five commission areas. I feel very strongly the desirability of varying the work of county court judges. The service they render is inestimable, as everyone would agree. Their administration of justice commands universal applause. Certainly, they already have a wide range of topics to deal with.
It has been our experience that, except in very individual specialised cases, it is desirable that a judge's work should cover as bread a range of human relationships as possible. We are rather suspicious about the permanent, fulltime


recorder, for example, who does only criminal work. We have the Recorder of London, who is an excellent exception, perhaps, to the principle I have been sketching, but of going beyond that we have always been chary and have rested upon the principle, which is quite right, that judges other than those dealing with specialised work like patents should, when dealing with cases affecting human beings, have experience as broadly-based and widely-flung as possible. Clause 5 goes in that direction and I feel that it makes a very substantial improvement which is of considerable value.
I want to close my speech with a note on names. That the outer London areas should be the north-east, south-east, south-west and—may I say it with a sigh of relief?—Middlesex, is, apart from that appellation Middlesex, a matter which has a somewhat gloomy cast about it. The right hon. Gentleman is very conscious of it as were the noble Lords.
That we should be identified by the point of the compass, that we should have to consult the capital letters of a compass when asked where we live, is something which does depress and oppress the spirit. I hope that the combined effort of right hon. and hon. Members of this House, when the Bill reaches Committee stage, will conjure up some names which will not plunge the whole country into confusion, as we were assured would happen by the Lord Chancellor.
I think it was said that the name "Essex" for the south-east London area might plunge us all into confusion, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will find some name which will avoid these dangers. One noble Lord suggested that the area might be called the "Essex Metropolitan Area". The Lord Chancellor said that this would be disastrous, since no one would know what court to go to, or which court had convicted or acquitted him—indeed, that all would find their lives wrapped in mystery. This is the danger we must avoid, but if we could find simple names, not so pregnant with danger as that, we would render very great service to those living in these five big commission areas if the London Government Act takes effect.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Walter Edwards: It is not my intention to take up much time, but I want to speak about one Clause which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) did not refer to. I am glad of the opportunity to do so. Clause 36 provides subsistence allowances for justices of the peace for the first time. This is obviously an improvement, but it is not quite good enough.
In other public services, where a man suffers loss of earnings as a result of carrying out public duties it has been recognised for some time that he should receive compensation from the authorities. This point was put very forcibly in another place by a noble Lord, but the Lord Chancellor came to the conclusion—although I do not think that he is quite determined about it—that the time is not appropriate for justices to be paid for loss of earnings.
I cannot really understand that view. Surely, in these days of progress, when more and more working-class and middle-class people are taking an active part in all these functions delegated by the State, and greater recognition is being paid to the need to get the best types of person for such work, compensation for loss of earnings should be paid.
I shall not develop this aspect, but we often say that the salaries of hon. Members should be increased sufficiently to enable the House to attract the best people. I cannot, therefore, see what would be lost if we compensated justices of the peace for loss of earnings in addition to giving them a subsistence allowance.
Many J.P.s cannot get away from work without having to suffer financial loss. While some employers will pay them during absence—they include the nationalised industries and the G.P.O.—many private employers will not do so. The result is that many men will not serve on the bench or, if they are J.P.s, will not allow themselves to be called during their working time. In this respect, the administration of justice suffers, as some very able and experienced people are being denied the opportunity to play their part. More and more each year are coming within this group because of the widening of the scope of opportunity of public service for the


middle-class and working-class elements in this country.
It was also said in another place that the majority of the members of the Magistrates Association, in 1960, were opposed to payment for loss of earnings. That may be so. There may be a majority of that opinion, but there must be many members of the Association who feel that this reform is long overdue. I appeal to the Government, not on a party issue—because these people come from all parties—to look at this matter again. It cannot cost much, but it would enable every justice of the peace, whatever his job, to undertake this very important work in the courts and to give the country the benefit of his able assistance in the tasks which the courts undertake.

5.1 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: When he introduced the Bill, very shortly and clearly, the Home Secretary said that it was non-controversial, and that is largely the case. The Bill is to be welcomed on both sides of the House. It carries out a very-much-needed tidying up operation, and, at the same time, brings in some valuable reforms.
I should like to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) which arises on Clause 30. It is high time that this reform of the payment of subsistence allowances to lay justices was made. In another capacity I sit as deputy-chairman of two quarter sessions, and in my professional life I practised at those courts before being appointed a deputy-chairman.
When I first started to practise at Flintshire Sessions there was usually one day's hearing every quarter, with two courts sitting. Now, with the chairman and two deputy-chairmen, there are several sittings each month, and I know from the conversations which I have with the justices there that this pattern is repeated at the magistrates' courts level.
There is, therefore, a great hardship, which must be recognised, which attends on all magistrates, whatever their occupation, who are called upon to do this work. In this country they have always been described as the great unpaid, and I imagine that this emotional block occurs in the minds of

many magistrates when they are considering whether there ought to be compensation for loss of earnings.
The subsistence allowance, welcome as it is, does not go far enough. In another place Lord Champion referred to his own situation when he was employed on the railway as a signalman at £3 a week and was appointed a magistrate. He attended twice out of every three times that he could have attended, but he could afford to do so only because he was on a certain kind of shift work. This experience must be shared many times in many other cases. Surely the Government could look again at this Clause. Now that we are introducing so many valuable reforms in the Bill is this not another which could be introduced? I warmly support the hon. Member for Stepney in this matter.
It must not be thought, because I am selecting one or two Clauses on which I appear to be critical, that I am critical of the Bill generally. I am not. But one point which worries me a little arises in Clause 28, which is one of the two Clauses which deal with the indemnification of justices and clerks. Clause 28 provides that Clause 27
shall not apply to proceedings for an order of prohibition, mandamus or certiorari, or to proceedings arising out of anything done or omitted by any person in his capacity as or as a member of a court of quarter sessions.
The next subsection provides that the Lord Chancellor shall defray moneys ordered by way of costs against a justice, justices' clerk or clerk of the peace in respect of these proceedings.
Is this satisfactory? Suppose there is a case in which a litigant is seeking an order of certiorari, and it is a case in which magistrates ought to be represented in the divisional court. Because Clause 27 does net apply, they do not know whether they will be awarded costs until the whole proceedings are over and the Lord Chancellor has considered them in retrospect. Is not this a deficiency? Suppose that magistrates who thought that they might be mulcted in costs said to themselves, "We will not be represented because we do not know whether we shall get our costs", what would be the position?
I should like the Government to look at the Clause again to see whether it is not possible to fill this gap. There are


cases in which we have heard judges say that the magistrates ought to have been represented but were not. This Clause seems to perpetuate the threat of that kind of situation.
The Home Secretary and the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), referring to Part I of the Bill, commented on the transfer of the appointment of chairmen of juvenile courts from the Home Office to the Lord Chancellor's Department. Having read with some care the debate in another place on this point, and having listened to the two right hon. Gentlemen today, I am convinced that the Bill is right and that the function ought to be transferred to the Lord Chancellor's Department.
But there is one point which I do not understand and on which I should like some elucidation. In every other part of the country the magistrates select their own chairman for the juvenile bench. What is it about the magistrates in the inner London area which prevents them from exercising their discretion in exactly the same way and appointing their own chairmen? There may be some hidden deficiency in the magistrates in the inner London area and it may be that this is why they have not had the jurisdiction which magistrates have had elsewhere. But is there any reason why they should not now select their own chairmen exactly as is done in other parts of the country?
Mention has been made of the provision for more county court judges to be appointed and for county court judges to be appointed as temporary deputy chairmen for various sessions sitting in the London area. This is wholly to be welcomed, not only on the ground that it adds to the variation of the work for county court judges but also from the point of view that many of the ladies and gentlemen who occupy positions as county court judges have considerable experience of crime as advocates or previously as deputy chairmen of sessions elsewhere.
In view of the present spate of crime in this country, it seems a waste of material not to use the experience and knowledge of county court judges in criminal administration. As the Bill enables this to be done far more widely

than ever before, I think that it is wholly to be welcomed.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) said that he had scanned the Bill for an issue which offered a "glimmer of principle" as he put it, and I rise to mention one such issue which, I think, occurs to the mind on reading Clause 5. I want to hear the Government's view on the point which I shall make.
I entirely share the welcome which is given to the proposals that county court judges should be appointable as deputy-chairmen of courts of quarter session.
I agree with all that has been said about the desirability of variations in work and matters of that kind. In practice, it is likely that the judges who are appointed in this fashion will tend to spend considerable periods of time in the discharge of their duties. The period of service is to be decided by the Lord Chancellor, under subsection (1), and I think that, in practice, the tendency will be—and it may be a useful one—for county court judges appointed for this work to spend considerable periods of time in this temporary service. That will be a good thing, because it will enable them to get to know the way of the court and to become known.
If that happens, county court judges serving as temporary chairmen of courts of quarter sessions will be in a rather different position, and have a different status, from other judges who from time to time have served as chairmen of sessions. As we all know, sessions have benefited from judges serving as chairmen, and what is proposed here is really an extension of that. As I have tried to make clear, this is a most welcome provision and possesses great advantages, but if there is a degree of permanence about that service I think that the county court judges concerned will be in a somewhat different position from other judges who from time to time have served in the capacity of chairmen of quarter sessions.
Bearing that in mind, I wonder whether the Government regard it as desirable that a substantial proportion of the salary of the judges serving in that capacity should be paid by way of


contributions by the Greater London Council? Is not there a possibility of a shift of practice which may have some significance in point of principle? If it is thought by the Government and those who have been concerned with this Measure that there is no significance in the matter; that there is no important shift of practice and of status affecting the Bench, I think it might be of value to hear that that is their view. It seems desirable to clarify the matter.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. George Jeger: I support the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) that the Home Secretary should give further consideration to Clause 30 which deals with loss of earnings of members of the Bench. I do not need to repeat the arguments put forward so lucidly by my hon. Friend, but I draw the attention of the Home Secretary to the fact that the lack of compensation for loss of earnings restricts the number of people who can offer to serve, or accept an invitation to serve, as magistrates. The choice is restricted to a certain class of people. It is restricted to those who have leisure, or who have retired, or who belong to one of the professions and are able to practice when and where they like, and to those who are self-employed and can arrange their work to fit in with their public activities. Surely in these days we ought to widen the net from which we can draw people into public service, especially as there is so much more work to be done now?
The Home Secretary said that he took considerable trouble over the provisions of the Bill, and I am sure that he did, because it follows on the controversial London Government Act, 1963, and must, of course, dovetail into it. As this Measure is the logical consequence of that Act, we cannot criticise very much the reorganisation of the administration of justice following on the reorganisation of the London boundaries, but I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman consulted those who do the majority of the work behind the scenes—the justices' clerks and their staffs?
During the Second Reading debate in another place the position of the justices' clerks and their staff was referred to in one small paragraph. The Lord Chancellor

said that he hoped it would be possible to work out a formula which would be satisfactory to all the interests concerned. I know that the Home Secretary has had some second thoughts about this. He said that during the Committee stage he hoped to move various Amendments which would make the position of the justices' clerks and their staffs a little clearer.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider the Aarvold Committee Report, which in at least four places stresses that there should be no detrimental provisions from the point of view of the justices' clerks and their staff. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider, too, the London Government Act, which in Section 85 stresses that point in relation to London Government staffs, and perhaps I might add that Section 150 of the Local Government Act, 1933, also stressed that aspect of the matter. It is exceedingly important that the staff should have a feeling of security, and a feeling that they will not suffer by any changes that have to be made. They have a right to feel that they will be given adequate protection. Sofe of them may not want to transfer to the new authorities, and they, too, should receive adequate protection and compensation, whether they are full-time or part-time employees.
The Home Secretary referred to the delays that occur in the bringing of actions in the courts. My experience as a magistrate at petty sessions is that far more delay occurs in the preparation of the cases than there is caused in the courts themselves. Time and again we have noted that cases have been brought before us in respect of offences which occurred anything up to 12 months previously. If the provisions of the Bill speed up inquiries and instructions to local prosecuting authorities to such an extent that we can cut that time down, it will save a lot of irritation and annoyance to those on the bench who are often confronted with a case of a minor character which has taken a long time to reach them.
Part II of the Bill seeks to introduce various reforms in relation to the administration of justice outside London. There is one provision which I think should have been included, but which has not been. For some time I have felt


that solicitors in private practice in a town should not be appointed as clerks to the justice of that town. I remember one rather unpleasant experience that I had. An old lady who lived alone in a small cottage was given notice by post to quit her cottage. The notice had been sent to her by a local solicitor on behalf of the owner of the cottage. She came to see me because she was extremely upset. I was able to assure her that she could not be evicted as she had lived in the cottage for a good many years and was protected by the Rent Act.
She then expressed the fear that she might be taken to court. I assured her that she could not be, and that in any case the bench would have to decide whether greater hardship would be caused to the owner by his not being able to occupy the cottage or put in his relatives than would be caused to her if she were evicted. She then said, "If it goes to court I am sunk, because the solicitor who has given me this notice to quit is the clerk to the justices".
It would not have been heard in the same court; it would have been a county court action and not a magistrates' court action. But this poor old lady does not understand the difference between one court and another. The fact that the solicitor who had given her the eviction notice was also an official of the court, and part of the machinery of the administration of justice, put fear into her heart, and I had to promise her that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) would be gathered in by me to protect her if, by any mischance, the case happened to go to court. I assured her that it would not go to court in any event, and I took steps to see that it would not.
Nevertheless, the reform that I have outlined is a very necessary one in the provinces, and especially in small towns where ordinary people have no knowledge of the complex organisation of our courts of justice.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson: I know that the Bill deals almost entirely with London, but Clause 30 applies to justices of the peace in Scotland and provides for an improvement in their conditions. I take no exception to that,

but I wish to put before the House one or two points, and also to obtain some information, in connection with those same justices of the peace.
This afternoon I asked a Question relating to the numbers of persons in Scotland who were held in custody before trial last year, and the number of cases in which those persons had been found subsequently, upon trial, to be not guilty, or in which the evidence was of a nature that did not warrant imprisonment. To me—and I am sure to all those who heard it—the Answer which I received was a shocking one, describing a shocking state of affairs in the administration of justice in our justice of the peace courts—although what I am asking for would apply also to the sheriff courts.
I should like an explanation, or an assurance that this matter will be considered very seriously and that something will speedily be done to remedy it. The Answer that I received was to the effect that during 1962 no less than 9,303 men and 540 women were admitted to prison untried. This situation is related to those justices of the peace whose conditions we are here improving. Normally I would have no objection to the improvement of the conditions of anybody who does a job of work, but I must ask whether hon. Members consider that these justices are doing a job of work of which we can be at all proud or pleased about.
About 10,000 people in Scotland were committed to prison untried, and held, on an average—according to the figure given to me—for 12 or 13 days. That must mean that some of them were held for a substantially longer period, because some would surely have been held for a shorter period. Of those who were held in prison untried, 4,787 men and 370 women paid fines or were admonished. That means that the offences of which a good half of all those who were held in prison were accused were of a nature that did not warrant their being sent to prison.
Further, 964 men and 93 women were found not guilty, which means that in one year more than 1,000 people in Scotland who were held in prison before trial were subsequently found to be not guilty. This directly concerns the question of the way in which the justices of the peace are carrying out their


duties. We are here concerned with those same justices of the peace, and we are apparently so pleased with the way in which they are working that we are going to improve their conditions.
Only last week, in answer to a Question, we were told that the number of persons remanded in custody in England and Wales was about 35,000. In terms of population, taking Scotland as approximately one-tenth of England, it means that the Scottish rate in this respect is nearly three times worse than that for England and Wales. I presume that the Secretary of State was consulted about the Bill and agreed that this improvement should be made. I know that he not running the courts, but he is responsible for what goes on in them. I hope that he will be able to tell us whether he was aware of this position.
This is not a new situation. In 1961 the number worked out at just under 8,000, as compared with last year's 10,000. I would expect the Secretary of State to be able to tell us that he is concerned about the matter and that he will quickly take action to ensure that this kind of practice is curbed. I wonder what compensation is to be paid to these people for the fact that they were held in prison and were subsequently found to be innocent. To my mind it is a shameful situation.
The matter was drawn to my attention because of what happened to a constituent of mine. He had been working in his garden, one Friday night, and later went to the public house at the corner of the street, where he got into certain minor difficulties. [Laughter.] They were very minor difficulties. I have examined the case seriously. He was arrested and held over the Friday night, to appear in court on Sunday morning, although his wife pleaded that he should be released on bail, and it was known where he came from. He had never been in the hands of the police before.
When he appeared in court he was remanded until the following Friday, and bail was refused, in spite of the fact that, as I have said, the police knew where he came from, and there was no question of his trying to flee the country or commit any serious offence in the interim. He was held in custody for a week for a trifling offence. I am pursuing

the matter and I shall not mention any names. I merely raise it as an example of what can happen. My constituent was subsequently fined £10.
This is the sort of thing that happened to 10,000 people in Scotland last year. I appreciate that the Bill deals largely with London—

Mr. William Ross: The Clause to which my hon. Friend is referring affects Scotland.

Mr. Lawson: Yes, certainly, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will tell us that he is gravely disturbed at this practice, which is adopted proportionately three times more often a in Scotland than it is in England and Wales. I always believed that in Scotland justice was administered with a mare even hand and a more discerning eye than it was in England and Wales The point that I have raised is certainly not evidence of that. Therefore, I hope that we shall get some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman, and an assurance that the practice will be curbed drastically and rapidly.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Ede: This is the kind of Bill which I always read with considerable alarm. It deals with a service which has been well established and in which I participated to some extent in the past. It makes drastic alterations by means of Clauses which seem to bristle with points of administrative difficulty. It comes as a sequel to the London Government Act for which I never found it possible to say a good word, and from which, after strenuous efforts, I managed to get myself excluded by being no longer a resident in the area to be covered by that legislation. My right hon. and learned representative in this House can speak on it now with great impartiality for that part of his constituency which was included in the Measure was excluded in almost the last phase of its passage through this House.
It is very difficult to anticipate exactly what will be the effect of this Bill, when it becomes law, on the administration of justice in the area dealt with in the five special commissions which are to be established. It seems to be a new way of creating places of dignity that we should in such a Bill, bring in five


new counties and fill up five new commissions of the peace. I thought that the best thing I could do would be to consult the chairman of the Surrey Quarter Sessions about the effect of this Bill on those parts of the county which are concerned. He gave me permission to consult the clerk of the peace and obtain the opinion of the Surrey Sessions regarding the Bill.
I cannot do better than to read the letter which I received from the clerk of the peace. I have found that when one tries to paraphrase a document, ultimately one uses considerably more words than those in the document. Under the date 27th January of this year the clerk wrote to me as follows:
It was kind of you to write and ask me to send you the views of the Surrey Quarter Sessions in this matter. These have been communicated in the past to the Home Office both by ourselves and Middlesex, but I do not think much or any attention has been paid to them.
They can be expressed very shortly; namely, that the expenditure involved serves no useful purpose. Under the Greater London Act (under which we shall ultimately lose about a quarter of our criminal work), and about one-third of the criminal work is to be transferred to the south-west area of Greater London, where it is proposed that there shall be a separate clerk of the peace. This will necessitate the provision of a separate office staff and buildings to house them. The expense thus incurred does not appear to bring any corresponding benefit and indeed, to start with, it may be difficult to create an efficient and economical unit to deal with this amount of work on its own.
In Surrey three or four chairmen sit in separate courts for between two and three consecutive weeks in a month to transact the criminal business. For the rest of the time they are able to pursue their other activities. It may be that in the south-west area of Greater London one chairman will have to sit on his own continuously. I understand that experience has suggested that this is undesirable.
I personally am also concerned with a further aspect of this matter in that many of the justices of the peace who have served the county extremely well in the past, will be removed to another quarter sessions. I do not suppose, however, that Parliament will worry about this.
I would not suggest that Parliament should worry very much about a matter of internal administration such as that. But it is evident that there will be considerable disturbances in a system which at the moment is working very well.
I ought to apologise to the Home Secretary for not being present to listen to him. My only excuse is that I was attending a Departmental Committee appointed by one of his predecessors and concerned with the work of his Department, and that I had previously had a long conversation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) with whose views, in the end, I managed to agree. I have no doubt that everything he said this afternoon was included in the subject which we discussed.
This Bill will require considerable and detailed attention when it comes to actual administration. I do not like the idea of there being five new counties with new commissions of the peace being appointed in areas where commissions of the peace now exist and where there may be some difficulty in sorting out various members of the bench in order to fill out the new commissions and retain a sufficient number of people on the old commissions to be able to maintain the court.
I wish to mention a matter which was alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards). For many years I served on the Lord Lieutenant's Advisory Committee. One of the great difficulties which confronts the members of such a committee is to find people with suitable qualifications, temperament and experience whom one can recommend for appointment to the bench. One of the things that operates against the selection which one desires to make is the fact that we have fewer of the leisured moneyed class in the country than we used to have. In a county like Surrey it was not an uncommon thing, to go to interview a person who was regarded as suitable to serve on the bench and to be met with this answer, "It is true that my grandfather and father sat on the bench. I know that we are short of a representative on the bench for our immediate neighbourhood. But my grandfather and my father managed to live on a private income. I have to earn my living and I cannot give the time." That is a very serious handicap when trying to fill seats on a county bench.
In the counties and in the boroughs one has the difficulty of going to busy men who are actively engaged in the


ordinary life of the community and who have shown that they possess the necessary qualifications of temperament and experience and then to find that the routine work of attending a bench, say once a fortnight or in some cases more frequently, is something which they cannot contemplate. I hope that steps will be taken to see that men and women of the appropriate qualifications—I put temperament and personal experience as the two most important—will not be debarred from service on the bench because of the financial sacrifices that may be involved.
There is no bigger gamble than to recommend a person for appointment to the magistrates' bench. I have known our committee sit for a long time discussing a particular matter and the first time a man appears on the bench one realises that, no matter what his experience might have been, his temperament is completely unsuited for the position to which he has been appointed. On the other hand, sometimes when one has been very dubious about recommending a name, when the person appears on the bench and participates in its work he proves to have just the qualities that are required. So much of the crime of this country is dealt with in courts of summary jurisdiction that it behoves us to see that men and women capable of service there should have the opportunity irrespective of the social and financial position they may hold.
This Bill continues the bad process, as I regard it, of moving certain things from the jurisdiction of the Home Secretary and handing them over to the Lord Chancellor. I hope that the Home Office will not be deprived of too many things that are not merely police matters, for it would be a bad thing if the Home Secretary were to become the senior police officer in the country. I see with some trepidation further moves being made in this Bill. The Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor are human. Both generally manage to reach their positions through their work in this House. I do think that there is so much to choose between them that one can safely say where the dividing line in certain services should fall, but it is very important that there should be a sufficient variety of duties left to the Home Secretary to prevent him from becoming merely a super policeman.
There are temptations enough to get into that position to which some Home Secretaries very readily yield. I am making no comment on the present holder of the office, about whom I have not always been able to feel quite reassured concerning some of the things he has done. I am certain it is essential for him, as well as for the country, that he should have a sufficient number of purely human problems to deal with in his Department to prevent him from becoming a super policeman and nothing else.

5.44 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): The title of this Bill and its subject matter—although certainly not the debate—might I suppose come into that category of business which the Leader of the Opposition termed as dull. So far as this place is a place for pyrotechnics I suppose most hon. Members who have been present this afternoon would agree. But so far as this place is one for constructive work this Bill ranks as a very important Bill.
Some people always claim that interest in politics is only interest in controversy. I am not altogether sure, and I do not say that where controversy is absent business is necessarily dull. Sometimes, indeed, controversy can be extremely tedious. There has been little controversy about this Bill. Many points have been raised by hon. Members which clearly we shall have to consider further and to examine when the Bill goes to Committee. I think there has been quite clearly obvious agreement about the Bill and I feel confident that the House will ensure that it makes progress.
The Bill is a consequence partly of previous legislation—legislation which, as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said, I personally can now regard with a far greater degree of impartiality—and also partly it is an opportunity to make some welcome changes and improvements. I fear that what I have to say because of the points that have been raised will have to be said in a rather staccato fashion, but I shall attempt to deal with all the points made by hon. and right hon. Members.
First, on Clause 1, I shall deal with points which arise about the Central


Criminal Court before I turn to the question which the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) posed without himself coming to a definitely decided view. That question was about the ex officio position of members of other bodies as judges of that court. It is right to remember that the Central Criminal Court is financed and its administration is paid for by the City to a great extent. For instance, in the capital reconstruction under the present programme it is estimated that the City will provide about £3 million or £4 million. The City pays for the fittings and fixtures and the salaries of the commissioners.
Until this Bill comes into operation, the counties pay the salaries of the clerk and other officers, for the office machinery, and day-to-day expenses. The estimated totals of annual expenditure are in the nature of £450,000 by the City and about £60,000 by the counties. The City will of course relieve the ratepayer of a very large burden. It therefore has a strong claim for retaining undisturbed control. Few would challenge the view that the standard of administration and efficiency at this court is extremely high. It has to estimate for an increase in business after these changes become law of about 20 per cent. Therefore, it is promoting a Bill to provide for more judges to man the extra courts which will be paid for by the City. The judges also will be paid for by the City.
There appears to be a distinction between retaining the ex officio members of the court—the Lord Mayor and Aldermen who for many centuries have been on the Commission—and inserting new ex officio judges who in fact will not play any part in the business of judging. I should have thought there was no need to enhance the reputation of, for instance the Chairman of the Greater London Council, a man who will be in the chair of a council representing between 8 million and 9 million people. I suggest that in this matter is is right to leave the Bill as it stands.
I was asked about the position of the petty sessions in outer London. The effect of Clause 2(3), which deems an area to be a county, is to produce the

normal county pattern of petty sessional divisions. The divisions will probably remain very much the same as they are now, with I suppose minor necessary alterations in the boundaries. Paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 enables the Secretary of State initially to make an order dividing Greater London into petty sessional divisions, and thereafter it will be for the magistrates' courts committee to recommend any long-term changes.
The right hon. Member for South Shields obviously found great reluctance in having to accept the Bill and the reorganisation which flows from it, probably due, as he frankly said, to his distaste for the parent Measure which has made part of this Bill necessary. The right hon. Gentleman was not here, for reasons which he explained, when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary pointed out that there had been a suggestion to begin with that there should be only one whole area but that that had not attracted the support of the persons within the area and that there had therefore been this division into five. Of course there must be a disturbance among organisations when there is a reorganisation to this extent. For instance, the South-West London area will have a population of nearly 700,000; the Middlesex area will have a population of over 2 million, and the inner London area will have a population of about 3 million.
The chairmen of the Surrey Quarter Sessions and the Middlesex Sessions were seen by my noble and learned Friend, who listened to the representations they made. The court areas must be based on the structure of the Greater London Area and the divisions in it.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) referred to Clause 28 and the position of lay justices with regard to the indemnity and the absence of indemnity which can arise under the Clause. Under this Clause prerogative proceedings are excluded from the procedure to be applied under Clause 27. Particular safeguards have been given to justices and their clerks under Clause 27. There is the power in a committee to make a decision in principle under Clause 27, and, having made a decision in principle, no appeal can affect it thereafter and they will get the


support they are seeking should proceedings be brought against them.
Under Clause 28 they do not have those rights, but there is a discretion left in the Lord Chancellor. The position is that it is not normally necessary for justices who are respondents to proceedings in the Divisional Court on a motion for one of the prerogative writs to be represented. In practice they usually file an affidavit. If the Divisional Court asks for the justices to be represented, it is intended that the Treasury Solicitor should make the necessary arrangements and the Lord Chancellor would decide in advance if he thinks fit, to indemnify them, and also a recorder, deputy recorder or assistant recorder, clerk of the peace or deputy clerk of the peace, for such costs and damages as could be the subject of an indemnity under Clause 27. Therefore, this discretion exists, to be applied, if necessary, in the rare cases which I think will arise.
The juvenile courts in London have always operated for the area as a whole and not on a petty sessional area. Hence appointment has been made by a Minister. It is intended to preserve the position whereby the panel is not split and the members dissipated over the whole of the area. They are to be kept together as a unit. The justices of the individual division are therefore not in a position to elect such a panel. The juvenile panel in London has done very good work and should be, and will be, preserved as it is.
What the Bill does is to transfer the making of such appointments to the Lord Chancellor from the Home Secretary, a change which has been welcomed by some hon. Members and frowned upon by others. I should have thought that everybody would have heard with sympathy and agreement the statement by the right hon. Member for South Shields about the Home Secretary's human duties, as opposed from his other duties. Indeed, the Estimates Committee has made some criticism of the fact that there is not some more coherent division between the position of the Lord Chancellor and that of the Home Secretary in the matter of magistrates. The Home Secretary no longer has to make any appointment of magistrates. He does not now

appoint them. It would therefore only seem logical, as some hon. Members have accepted, that the Lord Chancellor should appoint in these circumstances. The Estimates Committee recommended that there should be greater clarification of the position of these two Ministers.
I turn to the point raised by the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) and echoed by other hon. Members about allowances for justices. The Bill does not provide for a loss of earnings allowance. It is right to remember that this is the consequence of the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Justices of the Peace in 1948 and the recommendation of the Magistrates' Association, though I bear in mind what the hon. Member for Stepney said about a majority and a minority. It was also the recommendation of the Central Council of Magistrates' Committees.
There is here a certain conflict in the attitude of persons considering the rôle of magistrates and the tremendously important work they do. It is difficult to say that magistrates are in the same position as, or in a similar position to, local government councillors. There is a distinction. There has not been any shortage of recruits who come from the type of employment mentioned by the hon. Member for Stepney. Such persons are available, and they are excellent magistrates in practice.
One minor matter is that of finance. The cost of granting a loss of earnings allowance and a subsistence allowance would amount in total to about £450,000, whereas the cost of granting only a subsistence allowance is estimated at only £100,000. Here there is a conflict, as has been clearly demonstrated in the debate. There is the view that it would diminish the prestige of magistrates and lessen their reputation were they to receive payment for loss of earnings. There are about 16,000 magistrates. They have carried out their task, and are carrying out their task, excellently, and there is no lack of recruits from the type of employment referred to by the hon. Member for Stepney.

Mr. W. Edwards: As the Government have conceded the principle of the payment of subsistence allowance, without


in any way detracting from the prestige of justices of the peace, surely it would be just as right to grant a loss of earnings allowance, again without in any way detracting from their prestige? The right hon. and learned Gentleman is missing the point. The fact that recruits are prepared to come forward is not the point. The type of person required is often prevented from coming forward because of the loss of earnings he will suffer. What is £300,000 to a Government like this one?

The Solicitor-General: The quality of recruits from the type of employment which the hon. Member for Stepney has in mind is extremely high, and there is no lack of them. That would indicate that this is not the bar which he has suggested, certainly not to the extent that he has suggested. Anyone with experience of magistrates' courts knows the quality of such persons who have come away from the type of employment which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. Admittedly, subsistence allowance is provided for the first time, but there is a distinction between that and an allowance for actual loss of earnings. We would nearly get to the position of a paid magistracy.

Mr. Ross: indicated dissent.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has not been here for the whole of the debate.

Mr. Ross: Yes, I have.

The Solicitor-General: It is too vehement to say that this is just not true, because the case is arguable, but this is something which would clearly give the impression and could give the impression of a paid magistracy.

Mr. Lawson: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that the judges and the sheriffs in Scotland who are paid are reduced in status because of it?

The Solicitor-General: Of course there are certain magistrates and certain judges who are paid, but they are part of the paid judiciary. If it is said that we should approach the magistracy entirely differently, so be it. I would understand the logic of such an argument. However, if we are to persist or

to attempt to persist with about 16,000 people forming an unpaid magistracy, we have to resist the idea of payment for loss of earnings. This is what the Bill does. Judging from what has been said today, there is no doubt that the matter will be raised at another stage. I have put before the House the reasons why there is no provision for loss of earnings.

Mr. William Baxter: Is there not a parallel when a magistrate, or justice of the peace, sits in a licensing court, when he is permitted to receive an allowance for loss of earnings? Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the same magistrate, or justice of the peace, sitting in an ordinary court should not be deprived of such an allowance?

The Solicitor-General: I am not aware that he does that in England—

Mr. Baxter: No, this is Scotland.

The Solicitor-General: I have not completed my sentence; I was quite sure that the hon. Gentleman would not have suggested it if it had not been the case in Scotland. I cannot speak to him about the Scottish law, but I appreciate the point he has made.

Hon. Members: Where is the Solicitor-General for Scotland?

The Solicitor-General: I remind hon. Members that the Bill is an Administration of Justice Bill referring to London and England and Wales with a slight reference to Scotland in Clause 30, which the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) so usefully brought into play when he addressed the House earlier.

Mr. Ross: Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman is addressing himself to the question of paying a subsistence allowance to justices of the peace. This is the one provision which applies to Scotland.

The Solicitor-General: I have said that subsistence allowances are provided. Most hon. Members will agree that that is a reasonable provision for persons doing this work. All I am saying is that if we go a stage further, we have to face up to a whole change in principle. This would be a major matter and if we are to do that, we have to reflect very


carefully upon the whole system of the administration of justice of which by far the greatest bulk in this country is carried out by 16,000 people, by magistrates who have been unpaid for many centuries.
The hon. Member for Stepney raised another matter with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary when he opened the debate, and I want to make it clear to the hon. Member that the existing deputy-lieutenants of London and Middlesex who will be in office at the time of the change are to be treated as if they had been appointed deputy-lieutenants of Greater London. As he will appreciate, they will cease to be deputy-lieutenants of London. That is their position when the London Government Act comes into force.

Mr. Jeger: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that the subsistence issue will be raised again. Between now and the Committee stage will he take the trouble to inquire from all the clerks to the justices in London whether they have any difficulty about making up their rotas or getting the required number of people to sit on the bench, because people cannot afford to give as much time from their work as they would like?

The Solicitor-General: This is a matter for my noble Friend and not for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. A careful note will have been taken of everything said in the course of the debate and of the hon. Member's intervention.

Mr. Ede: May I suggest that an inquiry should be made of Her Majesty's lieutenants and the chairmen of advisory committees in the boroughs of how often the person whom it is desired to appoint is unable to accept the appointment, so that someone who is not at the head of the list of appointments is made a magistrate? Is not this the greatest danger?

The Solicitor-General: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman and I will see that that is brought to the attention of my noble Friend whose responsibility it is.
The hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) welcomed the employment of county court judges in criminal business in and around London, as proposed in Clause

5, and asked whether there had been any shift in practice or principle. I confess that I do not see that there has. They are being used and will be used to the great advantage of the administration of justice.
The hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger) asked whether there had been any consultation with the justices' clerks. All the justice's clerks were included in the consultations on the general plan for the administration of justice in London and they are now in close touch with my right hon. Friend concerning all the details of integrating the staffs.
If I may dare come back to the matter of Scotland, having eluded, I hope—anyhow for a time—any of the interrogation, and refer to the comments of the hon. Member for Motherwell, the Secretary of State for Scotland will look into the problems in so far as he is responsible, but, as the hon. Member clearly appreciates, it is a matter for the courts to decide how they do their job, and how they do their job is not a matter for the Executive to influence. However, what the hon. Gentleman said will clearly be borne in mind.
I think that I have dealt with most of the points raised by hon. Members. Part I of the Bill flows from the provisions of the London Government Act and the reorganisation of London government. Its proposals are sensible and practicable. The opportunity has been taken in Part II to effect certain changes in the administration of justice. This is part of a continuing pattern, which to the casual observer may not be so apparent, which the House undertakes, that of improving and modernising the law.
Since 1960, there have been about 44 Measures which have effected important changes in the law, some substantial, some minor and 15 have been Bills promoted by private Members. An examination of the full list, of which Part II of the Bill is a part, reveals the remarkably wide extent of the Measures which this Parliament has already dealt with, while three other important Measures for the modernisation of the law are before Parliament. As the House knows, such changes can be effective only after careful study and examination, usually after examination by distinguished lawyers presiding over committees.
As the House will accept, in this sphere of law there exist very strong nonpartisan but differing views among professional opinion. Nevertheless, this Parliament has effected considerable changes and this Bill is a part of that process. I commend the Measure—Part I of which deals with the administration of London and Part II of which deals with the wider sphere—for Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to the administration of justice in the metropolitan area, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund—

(i) of any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable out of that Fund under any other enactment;
(ii) of any sums required under that Act for indemnifying metropolitan stipendiary magistrates in respect of damages, costs and other sums payable in or in connection with proceedings against them (other than proceedings falling within paragraph (b) (ii) of this Resolution);
(iii) of any contributions payable by the Treasury under that Act towards superannuation benefits payable to or in respect of the chairman or deputy chairman of the court of quarter sessions for a London commission area;

(b) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(i) of any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other enactment;
(ii) of any sums required under that Act for paying costs awarded against justices, justices' clerks, clerks of the peace or any such clerk's assistants in proceedings for an order of prohibition, mandamus or certiorari or for

indemnifying members of a court of quarter sessions, clerks of the peace or any such clerk's assistants in respect of damages, costs or other sums payable in or in connection with proceedings in respect of acts or omissions at quarter sessions;
(c) any payments into the Exchequer.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

6.13 p.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I should, perhaps, remind the House that the Bill is intended to facilitate a reorganisation of local authority borrowing arrangements. Under these new arrangements temporary borrowing will be controlled. The Bill gives local authorities greater access to the Public Works Loan Board. The first function of the Bill is really in the national rather than the purely local interest, while the second is a corollary to it.
We had a great deal of discussion on Second Reading and in Committee on the reasons for the Bill's necessity and the history that led up to its presentation. The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) suggested that we had got a bit frightened by the situation which we had ourselves created. I refute that. Perhaps it is people who stand still who get cold feet. Our policy has been to move with the times.
It is wrong to regard the last eight years as a period when local authorities have, so to speak, been in the wilderness, and to suggest that now the Government have reluctantly allowed them back into the promised land of Public Works Loan Board borrowing. This is an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary step, and what we are doing now does not amount to putting back the clock to 1955. Rather, we are introducing a system based on our experience of the past and our assessment of the needs of the future. I hope that this will combine the best of the methods previously used in the way best suited to the present and future needs


of local authorities, as well as to the requirements of a sound monetary policy.
During the interim period the smaller authorities have been able to raise a good deal of their capital from the P.W.L.B. in recognition of their difficulty in borrowing on fine terms on the market. Some of the larger authorities have, it is fair to say, operated with great skill, and enjoyed the opportunity of raising money from different sources and developing new borrowing techniques, notably that of temporary borrowing.
It should not be forgotten that free access to the P.W.L.B. up to 1955 was accompanied by restrictions on the period for which market borrowing could take place, and that restricted access to the P.W.L.B. since 1955 has been accompanied by relaxations in this respect. The new arrangements represent a logical development of these former arrangements. There will be some restriction on both temporary borrowing and borrowing from the P.W.L.B., thus permitting the sometimes opposing interests of the local authorities and the management of money to be reconciled.
I turn to the positive provisions in the Bill and the administrative changes that will accompany it. In future, P.W.L.B. loans will, for the most part, bear interest at the rate at which the Government borrows, plus a small margin for expenses. This should mean somewhat lower rates for local authorities. This point was brought out in our earlier debates.
At an earlier stage in our proceedings I was pressed to say precisely how the new rates would compare with the existing P.W.L.B. rates. This is not a question which can be answered concisely because, for one thing, there is no constant differential between the two sets of rates. Moreover, different local authorities will want to borrow for different periods, and this again affects the interest differential. We settled in Committee the misunderstanding that arose over the use of the word "differential", and I hope that the hon. Member for Sowerby is now happy on that point.
If the new arrangements were to come into force today, the saving to an

authority might be anything up to 1 per cent. according to the type and period of loan selected. Moreover, P.W.L.B. loans will be available on a wider range of terms, in so far, as local authorities will be able to raise maturity loans as well as loans repayable by instalments. Rather fewer formalities will be attached to getting and accounting for P.W.L.B. loans in future.
Clause 3 provides for a number of changes of this sort—procedural changes which will enable the P.W.L.B. to advance money more quickly in future. We hope that the time needed to deal with applications and make the necessary advances will be roughly halved. There has been some disquiet over procedure, and representations were made during the passage of the Bill. Though local authorities may still have some views on these matters, I hope that, in general, they will regard this speeding up of the procedure as one of the most useful results to emerge from the review which we have made of borrowing procedures and practices.
Although the Bill is not directly concerned with the control of temporary borrowing, this control is an important feature of the new arrangements and one which has rightly been present in hon. Members' minds during our discussions. In this connection, the point has been made that some authorities will have to pay more for their money because they have in recent years relied heavily on temporary money, which is cheaper than borrowing long-term. There is no denying this, although these authorities have—and this is the reason for the procedure—four years in which to adjust themselves to the new conditions, and will, of course, be able to obtain some of the countervailing benefits in having access to the Public Works Loan Board at Government rates.
In any case, the minority of local authorities so affected will in no instance be worse off than those authorities that have made more modest demands on the temporary money market. But there is no question—as, I hope, has been made clear in the discussions—of any blame being attached to the actions, intentions or policy of any local authority. It is merely that, if the trend were to continue towards such heavy reliance on


temporary borrowing, it would clearly create difficulties. It is to arrest this trend that these provisions have been brought forward.
Since the war, the Public Works Loan Commissioners have filled a variety of rôles in a variety of ways. At one time, they were lending a lot of money after little inquiry; more recently, they have been lending a little after a lot of inquiry. Now, with a versatility of which I am sure they are very capable, they will have to combine both rôles. I am sure that they will work as effectively as they have done in the past, and I should like to acknowledge the Government's debt to them for both past and future services.
I assure the House that we are continuing the consultation with local authority associations, who have helped so much to create the new arrangements. It is probably true to say that we have had more local authority representatives passing through the Treasury doors and more Treasury officials going through town hall doors in the last two years, than at any time in the recent past. There has been a very useful two-way flow of ideas, and I believe that, as a result, the new arrangements we now propose will prove suitable for the circumstances of their time, and will command the support of local authorities in general. It is against this background that I ask the House to give the Bill its Third Reading.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: When the Bill becomes law it should be an act of repentance, but, since the Economic Secretary has no shame in him, I will call it an act of recantation. The hon. Gentleman says that it does not represent a change, a reversal, of the policy introduced in 1955, because Her Majesty's Government move with the times. The truth is that the Government have got behind the times, and that is why the Bill is now necessary. In 1955, the Government closed the doors of the Public Works Loan Commissioners to many of the local authorities. The Government said that local authorities must first try their luck on the market; that if they were successful there, there

was no need for them to trouble the Board, and that if they were not successful on the market, they could come as suppliants to the Board for their financial accommodation.
The hon. Gentleman has just said that the larger authorities displayed great skill in borrowing on market. There is no wonder that they should have tried their skill there, because they were forced to go there. Towards the end of his speech, the Economic Secretary had the effrontery to say that there was no blame attaching to the local authorities for being as successful as they have been in borrowing on the market. What did local authorities find when they were thrown into the cold winds of the money market? They found that they could borrow what they wanted on short-term conditions more cheaply than they could borrow from the Public Works Loan Board.
That seemed a good idea to many local authorities, and they exploited the short-term market for all they were worth—and they were worth a good deal, because hundreds of millions of pounds have been borrowed short term by local authorities, who have undoubtedly benefited from it. Indeed, the skill of the local authorities, which the hon. Gentleman has praised, proved so successful that they began to borrow too much on short-term conditions. Not only that, but money was coming from abroad on short-term borrowing conditions.
That provided a new threat to our financial stability. A good deal of "hot" money was coming to the local authorities, and a good deal of what local authorities borrowed was on call for seven days. It would have caused a great deal of difficulty to local authorities if that money had been called in at anything like that short notice, but it was not, and has not been. But the Government, properly, have taken notice of the trend, and have wished to guard against its possible consequences.
That is why the Government now say that they wish to bring local authority borrowing back to a greater extent to the Public Works Loan Board and, in return, to control local authority temporary borrowing. The Government want to control that temporary borrowing because it has at present got somewhat out of hand. It is a little ingenuous


for the Government to say in the White Paper that the prospective call for long-term financing is likely to be greater than can regularly be met by existing arrangements. That is probably true of long-term finance, but is probably not true of short-term borrowing.
The Bill itself does not tell us very much about what the Government intend to do. We have to look at Command 2162 to find out the Government's intentions. What I describe as the "moneylender's clause"—Clause 2—gives the lending body power to fix the rates of interest from time to time, to fix different rates of interest for money borrowed on the same terms.

Mr. Macmillan: indicated dissent.

Mr. Houghton: Does the hon. Gentleman say I am wrong? Rates to be fixed having regard to the length of time for which the sums are borrowed. They can alter the rate of interest according to whether the money is borrowed on the security of rates or otherwise, and we find the following in lines 9 and 10 of page 2:
… and different rates may be fixed in respect of different sums borrowed for the same length of time.
That is the point I have just made, but the hon. Gentleman shook his head.
I do not complain. All I say is that under this Clause moneylenders are given a good deal of flexibility in the terms they impose on those who borrow from them. Some very large sums will be lent under the provisions of the Bill—

Mr. Macmillan: I would make one point of fact clear; there is normally no difference in the rates for local authorities except on the basis of difference of time.

Mr. Houghton: I am glad that that point is made clear, as it is not obvious from reading the first part of Clause 2. I do not make heavy weather of it. Clearly, when a lending authority is given powers to lend money to local authorities and other public bodies it must be given reasonable room for discretion as to the terms on which it will lend.
If members of the saving public want to know where at least some of the money goes, this is where it will go, because the Bill provides for a sum not exceeding £650 million to be placed at the disposal of the Public Works Loan Commission, that is £650 million obtained from the National Debt Commissioners who are the custodians of the public savings. This amount, which is to be lent to local authorities and public bodies, is expected to last about two years and then it will be necessary to come to the House for authority to lend more.
The Economic Secretary has repeated in his speech the apologia he made on Second Reading and in Committee for the change in policy on the part of the Government. Looking back now, there is no question that they did wrong in 1955. They have probably regretted it ever since. They are now putting it right and bringing local authority borrowing into a more reasonable and sensible shape.
The sentiment of Clause 5 and Schedules 1 and 2 weighs heavily on my mind, because I think that this is the last occasion on which we may have the opportunity of paying tribute to two former hon. Members whose benfactions led to the construction of public works which it was hoped would prove beneficial and profitable to the local community but which unhappily fell on evil days. There was the late Mr. J. C. Williams, M.P., who advanced a loan to the Mevagissey Harbour Trustees, over 60 years ago, for the construction of a breakwater.
Trustees were appointed to undertake the responsibilities for this breakwater and for financing its future, but unhappily in 1899 the trustees fell into arrear with their payments, owing, it is said, to the failure of the mackerel fishing in that area. One can only assume that mackerel fishing there has been failing ever since, because although the guarantor, that is, Mr. J. C. Williams, fully met his obligations, the trustees unhappily fund that their financial position was weakened, and we now have to deal with the consequences of the melancholy story of the Mevagissey Harbour Trustees.
Out of £22,000 lent to them, they repaid less than £1,000 of the principal. The interest outstanding, which is not mentioned in Schedule 1, is £43,000, and in Schedule 2 there is an item on which there is £59,000 of interest outstanding. It is a sorry story of the failure of the mackerel fishing in Mevagissey Harbour. We are now finally asked to extinguish the outstanding principal and arrears of interest. I gather from the use of the terms in the Schedule that these amounts have already been written off, but apparently they are not finally abandoned until they are extinguished and that is what we shall be doing when we pass the Bill containing Clause 5.
The other Parliamentary benefactor, Mr. T. B. Bolitho, M.P., guaranteed loan repayments for the St. Ives Corporation from about 1890 until 1908. There again, storms damaged the harbour installations and erosion began. The sorry story goes on that the local herring fishery failed. Therefore, we have to write off and finally extinguish just over £22,000 and accumulated interest of £26,000 at the end of the day.
The House should pause for a moment and pay tribute to the memory of the late Mr. J. C. Williams and the late Mr. T. B. Bolitho, who were able to bestow, presumably upon their constituents, benefactions which are rare in these days and which might be open to considerable suspicion if they were made now. It is not their fault that we now have to deal with the consequences of these enterprises.
The Bill is necessary and it is overdue. It is a vote of censure on Her Majesty's Government, but they are too blind to realise that that is what the Bill really means.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — NEW TOWNS [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to make fresh provision respecting the limits on the amount of the advances which may be made to development corporations under section 12(1) of the New Towns Act 1946 and the Commission for the New Towns under section 3(1) of the New Towns Act 1959, it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums which under or by virtue of any Act are to be or may be issued out of the Consolidated Fund, defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament, raised by borrowing, remitted, or paid into the Exchequer, being an increase attributable to provisions of the said Act of this Session imposing on the sum of the aggregate amount of the advances made to development corporations under the said section 12(1) and the aggregate amount of the advances made to the said Commission under the said section 3(1) a limit of £550 million in place of the limits imposed by the proviso to the said section 12(1), as amended and the said section 3(1).

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NEW TOWNS BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(NEW LIMIT ON ADVANCES TO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS AND COMMISSION FOR THE NEW TOWNS.)

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Martin Maddan: I beg to move, in page 1, line 20, at the end to insert:
Provided that no part of the money to be advanced under this Act shall be applied to operations in connection with the development of Stevenage outside its existing designated area.
I should like to begin by thanking the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government for the considerable courtesy and patience which he has shown me during the conduct of this affair, of which tonight's proceedings will be another chapter. We may hope that they will be the final chapter, but that will depend upon my hon. Friend.
The general objections of those of us who tabled the Amendment were expressed on Second Reading, but it is significant and worth repeating that every Hertfordshire back-bench Member,


and, indeed, other hon. Members with a knowledge of new towns and planning matters, have subscribed their names to the Amendment. The basic objection is that if the plans which the Ministry now has in mind come to reality they will be creating with the money advanced under the Bill a vast conurbation within 20 to 30 miles of London. This will include Stevenage itself, Hatfield, Welwyn New Town, Hitchin, Letchworth, Baldock, Luton, Dunstable, and perhaps even fusing with Hertford and Ware and other towns. What has been proposed is the expansion of Stevenage to limits which will bring it within 4 miles of the County Borough of Luton, 3 miles of the new town of Welwyn and 1½ miles of Hitchin. This can hardly sail under the flag of planning.
All the industries which are moving into the area are growing industries and they contain the seed of further growth within them. The people coming in are young people who, in the modern jargon, have a greater natural increase than the typical population. By continuing the forced expansion of Stevenage right at the nodal point of the area, which is what is proposed, we shall, if the Amendment is not passed, be authorising the expenditure of money on an object which all those familiar with the facts, other than, apparently, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and its officials, believe to be wholly objectionable.
There are also local planning considerations, but I shall mention only the major one. A motorway bypass running westward of the town has just been constructed, but, no sooner than it is finished, we have the proposal to extend Stevenage for 4, 5, or 6 square miles beyond that new motorway bypass. More than the motorway bypass will separate the two residential areas of the town. Owing to the way the town is set out, they will be separated also by the industrial area, by a main line railway, by the commercial area, by the Great North Road and by the town centre as well. The idea of creating a town composed of two distinct parts separated in this way seems to be against all the principles of planning.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has been kind enough to send me a letter which explains more precisely

what is envisaged. He tells me that what the Minister has in mind, if he should proceed with the expansion of Stevenage, is a growth to approximately 80,000 population by 1973. That is the aim of the county development plan period. But my hon. Friend goes on to say that further expansion is envisaged
to about 100,000 by 1981, by which time planned immigration would cease".
My hon. Friend says that he would expect the corporation to be wound up at that time, but there will be need to make allowance for natural growth and future roads and services also must be planned for what he envisages as an ultimate total population, in due course, of 130,000 or 140,000.
It all gets odder and odder. One might, from what my hon. Friend has said, assume that the present designated area was full to bursting point and that it was necessary to take further action. In fact, however, the present designated area, according to the published appraisal of the Stevenage Development Corporation, can accommodate 100,000 people, and the present population of the town is only just over 50,000. So we are only half way to the capacity of the present designated area.
Planning is fine, but I feel sure that my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friend and hon. Members opposite will agree that, while planning is fine, prophecy is impossible. Indeed, my hon. Friend said this on Second Reading:
No one would think it right, particularly in the light of past mistakes in forecasting, that we should not take the longer view rather than the shorter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th January, 1964; Vol. 687, c. 817.]
I think I understand what my hon. Friend was trying to say, but I thought that he rather turned it upside down, because, if forecasting contains mistakes, it is clearly better to take the shorter view rather than the longer. If mistakes are made in forecasts, it is upon those forecasts that one is basing one's longer view.
I believe that this confused thinking lies behind a good deal of the trouble. Forecasts are made of what is to happen in 1981 and afterwards, 20 or 30 years from now. It seems absurd that we should take an irrevocable step now about what will happen in a generation's time, when a thousand and one things


may have happened to change the situation entirely, and, moreover, it is all being done against a background in which it can hardly be said, on regional or local planning grounds, that the proposal could have intrinsic merit. At very best, it could be regarded as a pis aller; it certainly has no intrinsic merit.
If expansion is to be carried out west-ward of the motorway, it must be carried out quickly. Otherwise, the very heavy capital expenditure involved in bridging the motorway, laying out roads, laying a new trunk sewer, developing new sewerage works and bringing water and other services cannot be justified. There is no question of taking a decision now in case, in twenty years, one wants to do something. If the decision is taken now and any action is started on it, the whole action will have to be taken. This emphasises the irrevocable nature of what we are considering. There can be no such thing as a little expansion west-ward of the bypass. There will either be the whole hog or nothing at all.

6.45 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): I did not quite follow the logic behind the last point which my hon. Friend made, that it is all or nothing to the west of the bypass. Could he repeat it or develop it a little?

Mr. Maddan: If one is to be involved in spending £500,000 on extra bridges over the bypass, if one is to be involved in spending another £500,000 on triple-tier road structures, as the consulting engineers, Messrs. Atkins, showed to be essential if the development is to take place, if one has to lay a new trunk sewer to drain into the Ouse, as my hon Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said on Second Reading, instead of draining to the Lea as originally proposed in the technical appraisal, and if one has to bring water also from the Ouse instead of from the Lea, as apparently will be necessary, one will be involved in very heavy capital expenditure indeed. In fact, it will be development in a different catchment area.
As regards sewage disposal, for instance, what is now proposed, apparently, is not what the Stevenage Development Corporation proposed, which was to pump the sewage back into the Lea catchment.
I am quite sure that, whatever my right hon. Friend may think, his right hon. Friend at the Treasury will insist that, if this heavy initial capital expenditure is to be undertaken, the area must be developed fully and rapidly in order to make the expenditure fructify. As I have said, there can be no question, on economic as well as on technical grounds, of a trickle of expansion westward of the bypass. If it starts, it must be undertaken in a wholehearted and rapid way.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made another point which really supports my contention, and one finds this at column 728 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the same Second Reading debate. We were discussing whether it was possible to change the size and infrastructure of a town during the course of its development. My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) suggested that it was not possible, but my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary insisted that it was. My hon. Friend said:
… it does not follow that because it is a new town it is not possible to adjust what my hon. Friend referred to as the infrastructure for an increase in population."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 20th January, 1964; Vol. 687, c. 728.]
This underlines that we are not at the point where we have to take irrevocable decisions. The Parliamentary Secretary said that in the past many towns had been planned admirably. It is not being suggested that towns of this character are now substantially expanding. It cannot be true that a decision has to be taken now on assumptions, thin as they are, about what will happen in a generation's time.
I know that the main consideration applies to the town centre of Stevenage, which perhaps would have to be a different centre in order to cope with a town of 140,000 rather than a town of 80,000 or 100,000. But I do not think that even that is beyond achievement through the capacity and ingenuity of the planners. Many towns with fixed centres are expanding, and that can be done if it is necessary. If it is borne in mind that there is the possibility of further expansion in a generation's time, that should be easier still.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made a further point about the background of this matter on


Second Reading. I had said that the population density in Hertfordshire was equal to that of the Home Counties as a whole excluding Greater London. My hon. Friend said, "Yes, but not if you go close to London". The reason that the population a Hertfordshire is less dense close to London compared with other counties is that it has been well developed and planned and the green belt has been adhered to. The area close to London is not statutory green belt. Therefore, I do not understand the relevance of my hon. Friend's comment.
It has been indicated that there is no argument between the Ministry and the county planning authority on this matter. But there is a very substantial argument, and I made a telephone call to County Hall today to make sure that I was not mistaken. The county's proposals for the period from 1961 to 1973 envisage an increase in population of 200,000 in the County of Hertfordshire. Of this, three-fifths will be immigrants from outside the county. As to the period after that, it thinks that the country should cope only with its own natural increase which, because of the young population already in the county, would amount to approximately a further 70,000 by 1981.
My hon. Friend was talking of an increase of over 330,000, whereas the county is considering a substantially smaller increase because it considers that, by the time 1973 is reached, and since three-fifths of the increase of 200,000 people brought in during the present review period will be immigrants, it will have made its contribution to expanding the population of the region and that thereafter the proper rôle for the county, being so near London, is to cope with its own natural increase in population only.
This seems to be different from the Minister's thinking and the figures which he gave on Second Reading. The county has assumed that by 1973 Stevenage's population will have reached a figure of 80,000. It hopes that the forced immigration will stop before that figure is reached because if that figure is reached the natural increase in population will make the town even bigger. But it is instructive that even if that happens a population of 100,000 can be

accommodated within the present designated area. Therefore, why do we now, a generation away from a remote possibility, have to take these irrevocable steps?
A point which I want to emphasise is that 30 per cent. of the population of Stevenage comes from places other than Hertfordshire or Greater London, mostly from the North. This cannot be consistent with the national policy we are trying to achieve of rehabilitating areas in the North. If there is a tremendous expansion in the South at a forced rate it will inevitably suck in more people from the North.
In his letter to me, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary spoke about development to the east of the town of Stevenage. He said:
The Minister's examination of the possibility of expanding Stevenage to the west of A.600 derives from a desire to limit the further development of Stevenage to the east inside the present designated area in order to prevent the development of good agricultural land within the boundary and to ensure a better long term pattern, particularly from a traffic point of view, in the town as a whole".
I do not understand this. The present designated area was marked out after a public inquiry and has been the basis of planning in the county. It may now be suggested that some of the designated area will not be developed at all and that we shall have expansion westwards instead. I do not know whether this is true, but it serves to underline the folly of trying to predict what will happen in a generation's time. The designated area was settled about 12 years ago and no proposals have been entertained to change it. I therefore cannot understand why it is necessary to make this drastic change based on an estimate of the situation which will obtain a long time in the future.
I conclude by dealing with the position of Parliament. Stevenage is a current example of a more general issue which stems from the fact that in the New Towns Act, 1946, no provision was made for the Orders made by the Minister designating areas of new towns to come before Parliament under either the affirmative or negative Resolution procedure. It is inconceivable to me that had this Act been passed later in the life of the Labour Government, or in


the life of the Conservative Government, some such provision would not have been made. I am certain that it would. We are, therefore, asked to vote money for purposes over which we have no say and which are not clear to us. We do not know whether the Minister will expand Stevenage. We do not know what he will do about other towns, although he has told us what he proposes in some cases.
It may be that this is all very well, but a new situation has arisen since we last advanced money to the new town corporations. It has arisen in two ways. It has arisen partly through the designation of entirely new second generation new towns. That is wholly admirable. Proposals for new towns are debated at length and there is a great deal of discussion before they are agreed, but, with regard to the existing new towns, because of the vested interest which exists by reason of the machinery of a development corporation, it could easily come about that there are more and more extensions of existing new towns. This is why I think that Parliament must take unto itself power to have a say in whether the money being voted should be spent on extending present designated areas.
In the Amendment we particularly refer to Stevenage, but, if my right hon. Friend wishes to take the point more generally, we should be very pleased. I realise that we cannot put a complete stop on changing designated areas, but we might have an understanding that they should not be changed by more than 10 per cent. in acreage between one Bill advancing money and the next. That would give us a chance to debate these matters.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree to the Amendment at least in spirit. He may wish to redraft it. I realise that many considerations have arisen since the passage of the 1946 Act. I hope at least that my right hon. Friend will assure the House that no extension to Stevenage will be made without its first being debated and voted upon by this House. That, at least, we can ask. It would be better still if my right hon. Friend told us that in view of my eloquent plea and its inherent logic the

whole proposition of expansion would be dropped. Then we could all go home.
I hope that if my right hon. Friend cannot accede to that request, he will at least propose that we should report Progress so that he may consider what is being said not only by myself, but the view which is held strongly by all the Members of Parliament for the county and many other interested Members, too. This is a matter in which Parliament must raise its voice and exert its authority. When money is being advanced, it cannot be advanced in the form of a blank cheque for purposes which are unknown.

Mr. Gilbert Longden: Stevenage is not in my constituency, but it is in the County of Hertford, part of which I have the honour to represent in the House of Commons, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan) has said, the Amendment has the support of all the Members of Parliament on the back benches for the county and has the strong support also, as my right hon. Friend the Minister knows, of the Hertfordshire County Council.
I have been seriously disturbed for many years about the possible spoliation of the County of Hertford. When our successors come along, they will not consider that we have been very good trustees for posterity when they look either at the capital city in which we live or at its environs.
After the war, unless London was to be allowed to spread indefinitely, it was understood and appreciated by all that it was necessary to have the new towns process—in other words, to leapfrog the surplus population of London out over the green belt and into the countryside of London. Everybody must, however, admit that the County of Hertford has taken more than its fair share of overspill, not only from London but from other parts of England.
We have two new towns and two large London County Council estates. The difficulty is that the whole object of the exercise, which was to stop London spreading, is rapidly not being achieved. The object of that exerise is being vitiated by bad planning. London is beginning to spread far too much and if the town of Stevenage, for one thing,


is allowed to increase on the other side of the new road, it will become a conurbation, which is a hideous term for a hideous thing.
The county authorities have agreed generously, but, I think, unwisely—although it is not for me to gainsay them—to accept another 120,000 population from outside alone. We have, of course, to make provision in the county for natural increase, and this the county is more than prepared to do, but it has agreed to take another 120,000 population.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend that that is enough. He must not force upon the County of Hertford any more people than the county is prepared to take. The county, with all its expert advice—which, of course, is not available to me—thinks that it cannot provision to service any more people. I do not know how it will be able to deal with this proposal as it is from the point of view of sewerage, water and schools. However, the county says that it can take that number and we must accept it, but I hope that there will be no more.
Incidentally, if I may take the opportunity of mentioning it again to my right hon. Friend, we in the County of Hertford are being meanly and badly treated over the block grant. Therefore, I support the Amendment and hope that it will, or something like it will, be accepted by my right hon. Friend.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: I hesitate to take part in this debate, because I am not a Hertfordshire Member. I am, however, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan) and as such I should like warmly to congratulate him on the erudite, forceful, carefully-prepared and eloquent speech that he has made on this problem.
Let me at once declare my interests. They are twofold. First, I live at Kneb-worth, on a hill—I am sorry to say, in sight of the sprawling new town, hideous as it is, of Stevenage. Secondly, I have another interest in Hertfordshire, which I do not expect has yet been raised in these matters, and that is as chairman of the Hertfordshire Quarter Sessions. Whether or not crime has any interest to my right hon. Friend the Minister in a

debate of this sort, I do not know. I can only tell him that the crime rate in Hertfordshire, as we are finding at quarter sessions to our cost, is growing daily and is growing almost entirely because of the growth of the new towns.
Stevenage is 28 or 29 miles from the centre of London. Most of the new inhabitants there have come either from the North or from London. Unfortunately, their friends, often described as raiders, have an inclination to come and visit them on raiding expeditions on private and business property within the county. I am quite certain that as these new towns, with new inhabitants, grow and become unwieldy, as Stevenage is, they are tending to become a hotbed for criminal activities. I know that this does not go to the root of the problem which faces my right hon. Friend the Minister, but it is a consideration which concerns the inhabitants of the county and I can speak of it with professional knowledge as chairman of Hertfordshire Quarter Sessions.
Hertfordshire is a large county. In effect, it is principally divided by what is sometimes jokingly called the iron curtain, which is the Great North Road. To the west of the Great North Road, the country has in the main been spoilt and built over without, perhaps, sufficient planning in the past. To the east of the Great North Road, there is a very different situation. One can ride a horse across country all the way from Walkern, which is now being touched also by Stevenage, and Datchworth as far as Bishop's Scortford, which, I suppose, would be a distance of 15 or 16 miles, without encountering a main road of any consequence. I hope that the Buntingford country, the Brent Pelham country and all that surrounds it, will remain untouched.
Unfortunately, the situation in the Stevenage area is this. Three old small villages, completely rural hitherto and completely unspoilt—Knebworth, Datchworth and Walkern, which is little more than a hamlet—have the tentacles of Stevenage almost upon them. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend has had the advantage of seeing a most helpful and excellent article in The Times this morning. If he looks at that map, I think that he would agree with me that, at the rate things are going, Luton and


Dunstable, Stevenage, Welwyn and Welwyn, North, and Harpenden with the possibility of St. Albans, all of which in themselves comprise a circle, will find the whole centre of that circle almost completely filled in within a very few years if these plans are followed.
I have been there only nine years and even the effect of the most necessary Stevenage bypass is already being felt. One can hear, night and day, the constant drum and hum of the traffic which must, of necessity, proceed along it.
It is rather unfortunate that Stevenage should be increased in size because, in the opinion of those who live near there and those who love the countryside and go there for peace and quiet, the area has now been ruined by Stevenage. What used to be most beautiful country almost within sight of London—only 28 miles—has become, in the new town of Stevenage, an industrial area. Indeed, there are notices up describing it as such.
As the distance between the centre of London and this rural area is so very small—London begins at Apex Corner which is, I believe, only 21½ miles from Stevenage—there is really very little room left indeed. I can understand it being necessary to start these new towns. There have been a number of them, including Hatfield and Stevenage, in Hertfordshire. But I cannot see the point of making them too big, of making them into cities when they happen to be quite so close to London.
If we go on at this rate not only will the green belt, for what it is worth, gradually disappear, but in 10 or 20 years time Stevenage will be the north of London. That is the sort of thing that I, as a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchen and a resident of that area, wish to avoid. I ask my right hon. Friend most earnestly to consider the views of the local residents who love Hertfordshire and who want at all costs, so far as is reasonable, equitable and practical, to preserve such rural interests as can be maintained.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Jasper Mare: I, too, have an interest to declare. At a very tender age it was at Stevenage that I

was initiated into the sport of fox hunting. It was with great pleasure that I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) say that it is still possible, at any rate in one direction, to ride across country on a horse from Stevenage. But listening to the rest of his speech a feeling of depression inevitably assailed me, as one who is interested in that noble sport, because, clearly, a very large area around Stevenage must now be ruled out for anything of that kind.
Those who read today's article in The Times, to which my hon. Friend referred, cannot but feel great sympathy for the people of Hertfordshire and, indeed, for those who, though not living there, love it as a country. The area north of London, the centre of which on that map, was, I think, Stevenage, is already largely occupied by large blocks of towns or built over areas, some of which seem inevitably destined to expand to take in existing villages. It would be a sad consumation of the wonderful Stevenage enterprise if the result were to be a new conurbation of North London.
The point of principle raised by the Amendment is the great degree of latitude my right hon. Friend has in the matter of finance, and perhaps other things also, under the New Towns Act. I was disturbed to hear the exposition by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan) as to the small degree of Parliamentary control which remains over the development of the new town plans.
My hon. Friend refers in the Amendment to the question of development outside a designated area. Of course, this is only one of the possible alterations that can be made to a new town plan and the implications can be quite serious if the size of the new town or its population is to be increased or multiplied within a designated area.
The implications of any extension of that kind cover a number of things, some of which have been referred to already in this discussion, but one aspect which I do not believe has been mentioned, but which is very relevant, is demonstrated by a case in my constituency, where a new town is in the initial stages of planning. The question which arises


for the county council is that of co-operating and assisting in the provision of services necessary.
When we hear of proposals, such as are apparently contemplated in the case of Stevenage, for increasing the population of a new town from 60,000 to 140,000, the immediate reaction of the county council is that the town is destined to be a county borough and that it will no longer form part of the county. The implications of that are obviously serious and can be more serious in some cases than in others. They could be less serious in a county like Hertfordshire, which already has a very large population, but in a county like Shropshire, where the total population is comparatively small, we might be faced with the prospect of a county borough with a population as large as the rest of the county.
I want to say at once—and I think that my hon. Friend knows this because we have corresponded and discussed it—that I have no a priori feelings on the matter. If he and his advisers think it right to launch a new town of 100,000, or 200,000, or 500,000, and the need can be proved, then by all means let it be launched. But it is important that a decision should be taken at the outset and that it should be made clear that that decision is not to be altered at a later stage.
But what is really demoralising in a situation of this kind is the feeling of uncertainty. My right hon. Friend knows me well enough to realise that I am not accusing him in any way of any lack of sincerity or of candour, but what impresses me is the knowledge we all have of the appalling size of the problem which is confronting us, and him in particular, the tremendous demands that exists in the London and West Midlands areas. If that is the situation that has to be faced, and which ultimately will need a different answer, all I ask is that the question be faced now so that uncertainties may be eliminated and we know at the outset what is to be done.
I am sorry if, in the course of my speech, I have been led away from the question of Hertford and Hitchin and the purpose of the Amendment. It would be for the comfort of all of us if it could be provided in this new town legislation that there was a greater

degree of opportunity for Parliament to control and decide at all these stages instead of the whole thing being, as I understand it is now, largely in the control of my right hon. Friend without any specific reference to Parliament.
I hope very much that my right hon. Friend will have taken serious note of what has been urged in this connection and that he may be able to give us some words of comfort applicable not only to the case of Stevenage, but in the whole context of new town legislation.

Mr. Michael Stewart: The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) mentioned that although he lived in one of the constituencies concerned, he did not represent any of them. I am not sure that those who represent them would be as ready as he was to describe the new towns as a hotbed of crime. That is not the way one usually refers to one's own constituency. Nor are the restrictions on the opportunities for fox-hunting in the neighbourhood one of our major anxieties in this question.
Here is a proposal to expand to 140,000, with the possibility of further expansion later, a town which to begin with was not designed for anything like that number. It is a proposal which, on the face of it, needs to be defended by the person making it. It does not appear, at first sight, to be a happy example that we should suddenly take a town not intended to be of this size and announce that it is to be expanded on this scale.
We must also look at the many objections which have come from people in the locality I admit that when we consider them, we must always be prepared to do a certain amount of discounting. We remember the objections which were raised to the creation of the new town of Stevenage in the beginning. Nearly all of us as some time or another have had letters from country dwellers who believe that the main purpose of town and country planning legislation is to prevent anyone else from doing what they have done themselves—building a nice house in a country district.

Mr. Longden: The original objections to stevenage came from those who had lived all their lives in the small country village of Stevenage,


and they were understandable; but they were not shared by the people who realised the necessity for the new town, certainly not by the planners in the country, as these new objections are.

Mr. Stewart: I accept that. I was saying only that when considering local objections, we had to be prepared to allow for the fact that there might be some who simply did not want any further changes.
What the Government must notice in this instance is that the objections cannot be dismissed in that manner. I need not rehearse all these objections, because I have no doubt that the Minister is familiar with the observations of the Urban District Council of Stevenage and the other local objectors and the anxieties about what happens when a town is expanding in a way which adds a new residential area on the other side of the main road and railway, that makes what used to be a bypass a road running through the centre of the town, and which adds at one point a new area designated for industry which, if it caters for people working in the town at all, will probably cater for those right on the other side of the town and opposite the main road.
No doubt, he is familiar with the anxieties about the proposed expansion's effect on the High Street and the town centre and the adequacy of the services to meet the new population, the problem of the education services and the disposal of sewage and the construction of reservoirs which may be needed. We are entitled to ask from the Government an answer to these and other precise and serious objections advanced by people in the locality.
We must also have an assurance from the Government that this kind of thing will not become frequent. I have often said that the new towns policy over the past years ought to have been the creation of far more new towns than we have. If that had been the case, we might not have had these rather hasty proposals for the expansion of new towns near London. Those who support the expansion might point to the growing population of the South-East and say, "They must go somewhere". The answer to that is partly that if proper provision had been made for new

town development in these years, it would not be necessary to meet that need now in this rather unhappy manner, and partly to ask what certainty we have, as the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan) asked, that the additional accommodation provided in Stevenage will serve the purpose of meeting the growth of population in the South-East. Might it not be a further factor drawing population from the North?
If this proposal is to be justified at all, it can be justified only by a Government showing a clear national policy for the distribution of industry and the spread of population over the country as a whole. That is one of the things which the Government have not yet produced. It is one of the things which we are told is just about coming to birth, like so much else at the end of this Parliament and this Government. It seems that the Government have a good deal of explaining and justification to do if the Committee is to be at all happy about this proposal.
Mention has been made of the extent to which Parliament can control new towns policy. Our present difficulty is that nobody wants to impede the passage of a Bill of this kind, which is providing funds that are needed for new towns as a whole. The mechanism of a parliamentary debate such as this is not adapted to dealing with such questions as whether Stevenage should be expanded at this moment. Questions like that can be answered only as the result of a detailed survey, possibly the examination of witnesses, and in the light of a national policy for new towns.
What this suggests is that, just as the House of Commons has a Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, it might be useful to have a Select Committee regularly considering and issuing periodic reports about the development of new towns policy as a whole. This would not be a matter on which there would be divisions of opinion rigidly determined by party lines. A Select Committee of that kind would have the opportunity to examine the evidence and of relating particular proposals to new towns policy as a whole. The House of Commons would probably be better equipped to debate and decide such issues if it had before it the Reports of a Select Committee of that kind.
I am very glad that the hon. Member for Hitchin has raised this matter. We shall want to hear rather more from the Government in justification of a policy which has been so ill received by most of the people whom it will concern.

7.30 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: I cannot claim to know every inch of this area, but in my youth I was at school in the neighbourhood for five years, and immediately after leaving my O.C.T.U. in 1939–40 I spent six months training around the area, so I know its beauty fairly well.
The idea of enlarging Stevenage New Town has found an eloquent, persistent, and studious opponent in my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan), and I shall try to answer not only what he said during this debate, but what he has said by way of letter, and in previous debates. I shall also seriously take into account the views of other hon. Members representing Hertfordshire constituencies which they have not been slow in putting before me on many occasions, and the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden) reminded me of the prolonged discussions that we have had on this subject.
I hope that those hon. Members will not think me discourteous if I turn at once, because it is a slightly isolated point, to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More). My hon. Friend spoke nominally of Stevenage, but his heart was in his own constituency, and he had in mind the prospects of Dawley. I know that my hon. Friend feels that the Government should be able to say categorically for decades, and even scores of years, ahead exactly what the population of Dawley will be. My hon. Friend was good enough to say that I have not tried to evade the issue in any way, and I have told him that, so far as the Government have any facts, the present ceiling of population for that town is firmly established.
What I cannot tell my hon. Friend is whether the population growth and movement in this country will make that population ceiling immutable for all time. The whole task of Governments is to look ahead as far as possible. Just

because we cannot be certain for scores of years ahead, we must not be intimidated from making the necessary decisions on the uncertain data that we have when it is necessary to decide.

Mr. Maddan: Part of my objection to what my right hon. Friend has in mind is precisely that he is trying to base his plan on what is to happen decades ahead. If he cannot see it for Dawley, he cannot see it for Stevenage.

Sir K. Joseph: I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to develop my argument. I shall deal with what he said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow broadened his argument to say that it was unfair on counties to expect them to foster and nurture new towns, and expanded towns, within their periphery if they are to find that as they grow these new communities take county borough status and remove their valuable prosperity and enterprise from the county's benefit.
We have to face that problem. At the moment the magic figure is about the 100,000 mark, and at about that mark the community has at least a prima facie case for being considered for county borough status, though there are many other factors to be borne in mind. In a speech last year to the County Councils Association, the very people who are worried about this, I made the point that this figure of 100,000 could not be considered immutable for all time, and that it might be necessary to look at it again, though I stressed that it would not make sense to look at it again during this round of local government reorganisation. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept, therefore, that his point is taken.
Now I come to the Amendment. First, I am afraid that on a technical point I must say that an Amendment to the New Towns Bill, which is to provide extra money for new towns in general, is not really the basis either for trying to change the procedure for the designation of new towns or for securing control oven a particular new town proposal which Parliament never intended.
I am not, however, going to rely heavily on that technical argument. I shall try to deal with the case on its merits, but it leads me to the point


made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin, and stressed by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), that Parliamentary control over new towns—I suppose they would say over large town expansion projects as well—might need to be reconsidered. That point of view has not been strongly recommended to me in the past.
Parliament has laid down a statutory process which requires that after the Minister concerned has decided that there is a prima facie case for the establishment of a new town, or of a large town expansion, he is required first to carry out consultations with the local authorities concerned, and then make a draft designation order which must be followed, if there are objections—and there are almost invariably bound to be—by a public inquiry. It is on the basis of the public inquiry that the final decision is made.
I think that hon. Members ought to recognise that if we were to depart from that procedure—I doubt whether the Select Committee to which the hon. Member for Fulham referred would be the right alternative—we should almost certainly be forced into some such procedure as we must use for local government reorganisation, that is, a series of consultations, followed almost invariably by a public inquiry, and the process completed by Order either on the affirmative Resolution or the negative Resolution procedure in this House. Be that as it may, the fact is that there is a Parliamentary procedure, and that unless Parliament decides to alter it, this Bill does not seem to be the vehicle for changing it even in the case of Stevenage.
Now I come nearer to the substance of the argument. I thought that the hon. Member for Fulham brought out the case quite well, that it would be one thing if we were considering expanding Stevenage, and doing nothing else about the seething population growth in this country, and of the South-East in particular. It would be quite another if the Stevenage proposal could be seen against the background of an overall plan for dealing with population growth in the country as a whole.
I think that it is common ground that we face a population explosion in this

country. I think that the figure can be given in its most dramatic form in a couple of sentences. In 1955 the Registrar-General projected that the population of England and Wales in the year 2000 would be 46 million. In the second half of the fifties the birth rate began to rise, and continued to do so even in 1963. In 1963 the Registrar-General projected that the population of England and Wales in the year 2,000 would be not 46 million, but 64 million, an increase of 18 million simply by the implication of the increasing birth rate between 1955 and 1963. That is a measure of the population growth that we face on present evidence, and it may mount higher.
It is wrong of the hon. Member for Fulham to tease the Government with having only recently started to take action about that problem, I think that he and the Committee must recognise that it is the rapid rise of the birth rate in the last few years, starting in the last years of the 1950 decade, that has made it necessary to revise so dramatically the need for land for development purposes. As soon as the Government had enough population trend information on which to go they initiated studies of the land needs of the areas of maximum congestion, and, as the Committee knows, my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary initiated the South-East Study, which is the relevant one in this case, in 1961. I hope that the South-East Study, which should emerge soon, will give the public and hon. Members the background against which to judge this particular Stevenage proposal.
The next thing that I should do is to set out what facts there are, before coming to the comments. It is common ground that the original population target for the Stevenage New Town was 60,000. It is common ground that that target was recently raised to 80,000. It is common ground that its population is now over 50,000, and it is known that the Government have in mind a proposal to raise the target to 100,000, to be reached by about 1981, and that thereafter they would expect—if that target were officially accepted—that by natural growth the town of Stevenage would in due course have a population of between 130,000 and 140,000. It is a fact common to both sides of the


argument that the growth of the population of Stevenage by 1973 will probably result in the figure by then being 80,000, whether the Government's existing plan or an increased population plan were adopted.
Let me put it another way. Were they to be adopted, both the Hertfordshire proposals for Stevenage and the Government's increased proposals for Stevenage would result in a population of 80,000 by 1973. The issue between the Hertford County Council—and those who agree with the Council—and those who advocate an increased target for Stevenage, is the rate of growth after 1973.
I now come to the comments. There are four main headings under which criticisms and questions can be marshalled. They can be referred to telegraphically as "fair shares", "coalescence", "quality", and "costs". I shall deal with each in turn. First, the argument has been powerfully put to me by all the Hertfordshire Members that enough is enough and that Hertfordshire has done its fair share in dealing with rising population, especially London's overspill. If we look at the postwar figures alone, we are inclined to feel that this argument has much weight. Coupled with this argument is the view, put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) and echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow, that Hertfordshire is such a beautiful county—and we all agree about that—that any extra population will be bound to ruin it. I can only meet both arguments by saying that Hertfordshire, perhaps, had to take more of the population rise and overspill after the war because it had not taken its fair share before the war.
We can see what happened to a county that took a great deal of the population rise, overspill and sprawl before the war, and before planning was effective. If Hertfordshire had taken its fair share before the war much of the county today might be like Middlesex, and to those who sometimes criticise the effects of planning I would say, "Consider whether you would rather have a Hertfordshire with all the extra population accommodated there and all the beautiful country left, or the urban sprawl which Middlesex was unfortunately allowed to become."
But I am not merely anxious to justify the share that Hertfordshire has taken by looking at the pre-war as well as the post-war situation; we must also consider the future. Here, I come back to the South-East Study. In that Study both public and hon. Members will recognise that the Government have tried to foresee what population growth has to be provided for in the South-East, and to spread it in the most sensible way. If my hon. Friends compare the population increase that will have been taken by each home county not between 1951 and 1961 but between 1951 and 1981—that is, between the post-war period and the period covered by the South-East Study—I think that I can confidently assure them that they will find that in terms of percentage of growth of relative population Hertfordshire will be playing only its fair part. I acknowledge that in the immediate post-war period it played more than its fair part, and I have commented on the pre-war situation.
I acknowledge that if things were to continue as now Hertfordshire might continue to bear an unfair share of the burden, but in the light of the South-East Study I hope that my hon. Friends will accept—they will be able to judge this for themselves when they see it—that that situation will not continue, and that in terms of the longer period that we are considering Hertfordshire's share will be only a fair one.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Maddan: Can my right hon. Friend say what the 1981 postulated figure is? Is it the present 900,000 plus 333,000—the figure mentioned by his hon. Friend?

Sir K. Joseph: I want to be cautious, in two ways. First, because the South-East Study is not yet published and, secondly, because the population figures are often compared on a basis that is not comparable, I would rather write to my hon. Friend tomorrow and give him that figure, but I think that he is broadly correct. What I am worried about is whether the figure includes natural increase, and over what period.
I leave the "fair shares" line of argument, with which I have dealt at sufficient length, and turn to the second


important argument, which is that any expansion of Stevenage, particularly to the west, would threaten coalescence. My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin knows the familiar jargon that is used in these matters. I will not accuse him of misusing the word "conurbation", in an emotional sense, but I think that he is slightly ashamed of bringing in the idea of conurbation in this countryside. Again, I introduce the idea of the South-East Study. If there were no South-East Study pending, and if my hon. Friend did not have evidence that there will be a planned dispersal of the overspill from London, I agree that he would have some grounds for suspicion that we might be going to take the easiest path of allowing even commuter overspill on any railway line that was available, and that this might threaten that certain communities which are now separate would join up.
I assure my hon. Friends again that when they examine the Study they will see that we are not going to take this casual and adventitious way of dealing with the vast population problem facing us. On the evidence that there is I see not the least reason for worry merely because the gap between an expanded Stevenage and a neighbouring community might be a matter of only five miles. Many gaps between communities are smaller than that. There are only three miles between Hemel Hempstead New Town and Watford, and so far as I know the county has expressed no fears about green belt encroachment. The distance between Hatfield New Town and St. Albans is less than 1½ miles. I see no reason why the lovely countryside between even an extended Stevenage and its neighbouring communities should be at risk. There will always be the possibility of approving a green belt notation for that land if the county council puts it forward, and if the Minister at the time judges it right to approve it. Therefore, I do not see that the case for coalescence is made out.
I now come to the question of quality. Here, I suppose that I must accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin is not a die-in-the-last-ditch defender of the present ceiling population. Indeed, I hope that he is not a die-in-the-last-ditch defender of anything. But I understand that he is a

determined antagonist of any extension to the west of the present new town area. He said today, and he has said on other occasions, that if we must expand Stevenage we should pack the extra people in—to use a colloquialism—only upon the new designated area. That would no doubt be practicable, but it seems to me that the quality of the town would be far worse if we sought expansion in that way.
At the moment, the town appears to be unbalanced. The larger number of people live to the east of the industrial area and east of the town centre. Were we to increase the population internally there would have to be the sacrifice of some excellent agricultural land and open spaces within the existing boundary which I believe that all interested in farming would deplore. There would, of course, have to be a considerable expenditure over a considerable extent of the town to make it fit for this one-car-per-household age. There would have to be expenditure on water supplies and education, however the town was expanded.
But, in terms of pure town planning, I am told that there are strong arguments for expanding—if it is to be expanded—not, as it were by thickening it up, but by expansion to the west. This would balance the town so that the population would live about evenly to the east and to the west respectively of the town centre and the industrial area. This would possibly allow a subsidiary shopping centre in the western district.
There would be a motorway running through it, but one of the lessons of the Buchanan Report is that with one car per household, more and more towns will have to have a road network on a motorway scale at least for internal use. Skelmersdale New Town shows this in its preliminary planning and I do not think that we should be frightened about that consequence here.
My hon. Friend moved on from quality to cost and he asked me a number of questions about water and bridging over the motorway and sewage disposal. I think that he will accept that these questions would mostly need to be answered, even if we took his idea of thickening up the town. But I


think that detailed questions of comparative cost are more the subject of a public inquiry and evidence and consultation than for answers which I could give from this Box. I have answers which seem satisfactory on each of the technical points. But I do not propose to go into them now. All the Committee would wish is that I should go on to some reference to the future.
I do not wish to mislead the Committee in any way. The evidence before me leads me strongly to initiate a process to designate this new town for expansion. That would require that I should consult the local authorities concerned, and after consultation a draft designation map would have to be laid. Following that, there would be a public inquiry—and all before a decision was reached. I wish to stress that were that process started, the decision would not be one to be taken for granted. It is quite conceivable that evidence either from the consultation or the inquiry would be such as to lead the Minister to abandon his provisional proposal, but we have not got quite that far yet.
I am anxious not to mislead my hon. Friends and I must tell them that despite the arguments which I have heard, which, as I think they would agree, were largely a repetition of what has been said before, I must still adhere to the view that in the light of the South-East Study and the rest of the arrangements to be made for the inordinately large population needs in the South-East—or the land needs for the population there—in the light of that, I still see it as a sensible course to expand the target population of Stevenage to 100,000 by 1981. But it would have been desirable to await the publication of the South-East Study, so that public opinion and this House could see the background as a whole, before initiating the process to which I have referred.
My trouble—I hope that it will be appreciated by my hon. Friends—is that there is a momentum in all these enterprises. At present, the momentum of Stevenage is running down. If the decision to initiate this process were to be made, in the light of the publication of the South-East Study, in a matter of months, and if, during those few months, the momentum ran down

further, we should lose valuable staff, the cohesion of a team and, what is more important, houses and jobs at a nearer stage than if we had not waited.
I am bound to warn my hon. Friends and the Committee that I may still judge it necessary to initiate this process even before the South-East Study is published. But I can assure them that there would be no possible question of consultation, let alone an inquiry, being carried out or completed before the South-East Study is published and known. I may wish to start the process, but there can be no possible question of the process being completed before the picture is fully available.
I fear that what I have said will disappoint my hon. Friends. I hope that they recognise that there are strong arguments against the case which they have put forward. I hope that in the light of what I have said, my hon. Friends will not press the Amendment. But I must retain freedom to consider the case on the merits, which include all the arguments which they have faithfully, persuasively and diligently, over a period of months, so strongly put to me.

Mr. Longden: Can my right hon. Friend dissipate some of the gloom which he has cast over us by the prospect of this South-East Study, which appears to me merely to be going to see that all the other beautiful counties in the South-East are to be wrecked like Hertfordshire? Has he any plans or have the Government any plans for deflecting the drift to the South-East?

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend almost tempts me to say that, as a bachelor, he is one of the few people not responsible for the problem in the South-East which is caused by the excessive number of births over deaths.
The problem of this country is not one of drift. The movement between regions affects a very small element in the population so far as the South-East is concerned. There is a regular procession of people to the South who come here on retirement, and there is, of course, a migration for work, which I do not question. But both these are comparatively small elements in the total picture. The problem is the sheer


fecundity of the population, particularly in the South-East.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: I wish to make a brief intervention as one who also is not responsible for the difficulties of the Minister. It is married men like my right hon. Friend who are giving us all this trouble. He referred over and over again to the understandable basis of this South-East Study. He said that we should receive this soon? May I ask, how soon is "soon"? Is he aware that in areas outside Hertfordshire—I must not stray far from the Amendment, but may I slip in Berkshire, for example—we are stymied—

Mr. More: And in Shropshire.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Yes, but Shropshire does not come into the South-East study.
Until this survey is issued, may respectfully, but firmly, urge on my right hon. Friend, and, through him, on those responsible for advising him, that planning requirements are being held up and very considerable inconvenience caused while we wait for what I quite realise is a very complex report? Will he give us an assurance before we come to a decision that he will do everything possible to expedite it?

Sir K. Joseph: I can certainly give that assurance. I am well aware that until we produce this Study, as my hon. Friend says, operations of planning in the South-East are to a great extent stymied. It is a complex affair and we must get it right. It is an important document and will have to bear the closest examination. "Soon" is, alas, not very soon—but it is still "soon".

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Maddan: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he said in explanation and clarification, both of the facts, which I think, we do not argue about, and his views upon them, but there are two or three points I wish to take up with him.
This is illustrative of the sort of thing which worries us. We do not think the planning thoughts behind the proposal to expand Stevenage will have very much authority or internal coherence. My right

hon. Friend talked about the South-East Study and its proposals being a safeguard against coalescence of Stevenage with surrounding towns such as Luton and Welwyn, but can he quote an example—either during the time he has been Minister or since there was a Minister of Housing and Local Government—in which planning has succeeded in stopping areas where there is industry from growing?

Sir K. Joseph: Very easily.

Mr. Maddan: My right hon. Friend says that it is very easy. I shall be interested to hear him continue.

Sir K. Joseph: I think that the green belt is the best possible example. Broadly, it has been substantially held against enormous pressures.

Mr. Maddan: But in the green belt there are no industrial towns. My complaint is that in a green belt of 1½ miles wide it will be much harder to resist those pressures than in a green belt which is several miles wide.
Factories in towns such as Stevenage, Luton and Welwyn are in growing industries. They bring their own momentum and needs from expanding companies. They bring new people to the area to work. Those people are usually young and they are enterprising enough to move to the area. They bring further natural increase with them. It seems no more than a pious hope to think that if once we get expanding industrial towns reaching to within a mile or two of each other any planning can help.
My second point is that my right hon. Friend said that my proposal is in Stevenage to "pack them into the designated area", to "thicken them up" and not to have them "sprawled over the countryside". I am not at all against using the designated area to its maximum potential, but let us be quite clear about it. When it comes to the question of trying to solve the problem of the increasing population, to 64 million which he told us about, I am not impressed by this argument about Stevenage, but for the record I shall explain what "packing in" in my sense means.
I am basing myself on the technical appraisal of the Stevenage Corporation of the expansion, which at the moment


seems to have been entirely forgotten by most people. It says that there are within the present designated area 1,193 acres of white land and about 880 acres, not including the Lea Valley, which will be used for expansion purposes. How many will be needed to reach the 150,000 my right hon. Friend was talking about? This is not my idea, but the idea of Stevenage Corporation itself, which says that the designated area can hold 100,000.

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend does not need to defend himself against a charge of that kind, but I said that he would accept the expansion if it were achieved by that means.

Mr. Maddan: Perhaps I would, but the designated area has room for grounds for amenity, schools, and so on, and for 100,000, whereas the present population is nearly 50,000. We are not half-way to using up what was designated when the party opposite was in power. It makes nonsense of the proposal entirely to change the shape and weight of the town.
My right hon. Friend talked about cost and said that there would be the cost of sewerage if the present designated area were used. The technical appraisal of the development corporation and a very able report from consulting engineers showed that in their opinion the problem of expansion could be contained within the present trunk sewer at Rymeads works, provided there was no substantial expansion of other areas served by the trunk sewer. I am proposing a comparatively small increase beyond the 80,000 originally proposed, perhaps to 100,000 in due course, I daresay that the present trunk sewerage works could take the expansion of other towns in the county. I do not concede that it is just as expensive to have 100,000 in the present designated area as to increase the designated area and to halve the 100,000.
My right hon. Friend explained the present procedures and brought in the question of Town and Country Planning Acts, saying that it was not his intention to amend them. I agree with that. We are trying to do the best we can within the framework in which we have to work. We are trying to expand something for which plans were not made in 1946. Does not my right hon. Friend

think that these procedures should be changed so that Parliament itself should have some say in these matters and some control over the use of the money which it votes?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not want to be discourteous, but in all the press of things which need to be done I do not think that amending the parliamentary procedure for the expansion of towns, either by way of new towns or by development, is something which needs to be considered in the near future. I have no strong evidence about this. I shall certainly consider it, but the short answer to my hon. Friend on that point is "No".

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. M. Stewart: The Parliamentary Secretary might like to take the opportunity to comment on a letter appearing yesterday in The Times from Sir Frederic Osborn, a very distinguished authority on these matters. In the debate on Second Reading, the Parliamentary Secretary gave certain figures about the profitability of new towns. Sir Frederic Osborn pointed out that an examination of the accounts of the new towns does not seem to bear out the conclusions which the Parliamentary Secretary came to. I think he would like an opportunity to comment on this view.

8.9 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). Very shortly, the answer is that Sir Frederic Osborn—who, as the hon. Member rightly says, is a great expert and, I have no doubt, knows all about these figures—has taken the gross figures and I have taken the net figures. I have checked up and find


that at least when I first used the figure of £360,000 I most carefully used the word "net". That appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I fully admit that every other time that I referred to it I did not always put in the word "net". However, it is there, and the sums work out, bearing in mind that I rounded up and that one can easily be a hundred pounds or two out when the detailed figures are added up.
The general revenue surplus which I gave was £730,000, from which had to be deducted sewerage revenue deficit of £370,000. If to the £730,000 as the general revenue surplus is added back repair and maintenance provisions, amounts written off, and amounts transferred to general reserve of the Commission, we get approximately, to within £1 or so, of Sir Frederic's figure of £967,000.
The only figure the origin of which I am completely at a loss to discover is Sir Frederic's figure of sewerage revenue deficit of £138,000. I can only imagine that he worked backwards and decided that this was the figure which would balance and therefore must be the right one. I have no doubt that there is an explanation for that.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). I am sure that neither he nor the House would wish me to make a long speech. Despite the reservations of some of my hon. Friends with regard to Stevenage, everybody has welcomed the concept of the new towns, and nobody has suggested for one moment that it is not a worthy purpose for which we should vote more money.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT BOARDS (RATES)

8.12 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I beg to move,
That the Transport Boards (Adjustment of Payments) Order 1964, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th January, be approved.
This is a very complicated Order, and I think that it would be discourteous of me if I did not try to give the House a brief outline of what it is about.
As hon. Members probably remember, after the railways and canals had been nationalised, the Local Government Act, 1948, exempted them from rates and ordered that the British Transport Commission should make a payment in lieu to local authorities. In England and Wales the payment is made to my right hon. Friend the Minister and shared rateably among rating authorities. In Scotland, the payment is made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
The amount is based on the rates payable in respect of the railways and canals immediately before nationalisation after adjustment to take account of the new valuation roll for railway assessments which was due then to come into force. For England and Wales this basic standard figure or amount was specified in Section 96(3) of the 1948 Act. The Act also provides for these standard amounts to be adjusted each year for changes in the average rate poundage of the respective countries and further adjusted for changes in the circumstances of the Transport Commission.
One of the difficulties that arises on the present Order is that the Commission has now been split into a number of boards, and, therefore, the sums have to be done for the separate boards. The other difficulty arises from the fact of revaluation. Revaluation by itself would have the effect of decreasing the amount payable by the railways because of the rate poundage factor.
A difference of opinion between the railways and the local authorities is broadly based on the railways' contention that, had they still been paying


rates, they would be rated on a profit basis. The local authorities have taken the view that the rates of everybody else have risen and industry has been rerated and, therefore, more should be paid by the Transport Commission's successors.
This is a compromise solution. It has been agreed, if a little reluctantly on the part of the local authorities, on the understanding that a new formula will be thrashed out. The necessary review is now going on. As soon as a conclusion is reached, a completely new Order will be necessary. This is an interim Order. As I understand it, my right hon. Friends are under a statutory obligation to make one and it is agreed, if a little reluctantly, as an interim measure.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

[28th January]

Resolution reported,

CONTINENTAL SHELF

That it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of any moneys received by the Minister of Power under any Act of the present Session to make provision as to the exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — LAVENDER HILL ALLOTMENTS, ENFIELD

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. W. Elliott.]

8.15 p.m.

Mr. John Mackie: The subject I have to raise tonight is stated on the Order Paper to be the Lavender Hill allotments, Enfield, and the Minister's decision thereon.
There have been several cracks at me today to the effect that it should not be the Lavender Hill allotments but the "Lavender Hill Mob," which, if I remember rightly, was a picture concerning some fairly pleasant crooks who got away with a fair amount of somebody else's gold. The two subjects are not unlike, because tonight I have to put to the House a question of a perfectly respectable company, run by one or two gentlemen whom I do not know

but who are no doubt perfectly honourable men, which is trying to get away with a quarter of a million pounds of Enfield's ratepayers' money. So there is some similarity between the two subjects.
I should like first to supply some background to the case. The main background is the price of building land. In 1947 Enfield paid £1,200 an acre for building land. I am glad to see that the Minister is present now, because what I have to raise is a very important point. For the most recent land Enfield bought in 1963 it paid £20,000 an acre. As hon. Members will appreciate, this makes every acre or plot of land which can be said to have a development value or a potential development value a target for speculators. I do not think that anybody would deny that.
The position in the green belt and in a town like Enfield is simply this. It is extraordinary that I have to put it in this way. Enfield Council would be better off, rather than buying land, if it knocked down all its immediate pre-war houses and its immediate postwar houses, which were built at a fairly low density, and rebuilt at the density which is allowed today. It would be better off, because of the price of land. I see that the Minister agrees with me. I hope that he agrees also that it is an extraordinary and quite ridiculous situation. It has arisen because of the legislation for which he or his predecessor were responsible to allow the market value to be paid for a commodity which was originally controlled—in other words, land in the Greater London area, the green belt, and so on. If a commodity such as land is to be controlled, I maintain that the price also should be controlled.
That is the background of the case. I am not blaming people who take advantage of this legislation. They are in business for that reason. It is the legislation I am against and the decision that the Minister took in this case.
I do not to pad up what I have to say by going over the history of these 12 acres, but I must pinpoint one or two stages in its recent history. First and foremost, it used to belong to Hundred Acres Charity. It was held by Enfield Council for permanent allotments for


over 60 years. Therefore, there is no doubt about the use to which the land has been put.
In 1954 the charity received £16,000 for the loss of development value. So already £16,000 of public money has been paid on this land. The land was zoned for permanent allotments up to 1959. Then the Minister of Agriculture, in pursuit of his policy in regard to land which did not belong to councils but was leased by them for allotments, released this land and classified it as temporary allotments.
This did not worry Enfield Council too much at that date, because of the long history of the land being used as allotments and the fact that about five times in the last 10 years or so various bodies such as Middlesex County Council who had the planning of this land had absolutely refused to change its use. In 1960 the charity was offered £5,000 for the land and, because of the use to which it was being put and the likelihood that it would remain open land, it considered that this was such a good price that it notified the council about the offer.
I do not know from whom the offer came or how it was originally made. The Charity Commissioners must give a charity like the one which held this land permission to sell. When that permission was granted the Commissioners insisted that the land be advertised for sale. That took some time to do and, in the autumn of 1960, the land was advertised.
At that time a company was formed, called Lavender Garden Properties, as far as one can see to do nothing except to investigate the possibility of buying the land. The extraordinary thing was that it was on 11th May, which was election day for the local councils, that it was insisted that offers for the land should close. A sort of Dutch auction had gone on until that date and it was sold to the highest bidder—curiously enough for only £250 above the council's offer—which was the Lavender Gardens Property Company.
The council was in duty bound to provide allotments. It is worth remembering that the council has lost a lot of allotment land for building and other uses in recent years. Despite this, the

council was determined to keep land for allotment purposes and in December made a compulsory purchase order, which was confirmed following an inquiry by the Minister, supported by the National Allotments and Gardens Society and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
There is another important point to bear in mind. One acre of the land has since been built on and it now contains luxury maisonettes which are being advertised to let at £5 to £6 a week each. Remember that the company paid less than £1,000 an acre. This shows that at least £19,000 profit has been made on one acre.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): Did the hon. Member refer to the density of that acre?

Mr. Mackie: I do not have the exact figures with me but I understand that 22 small maisonettes were erected on the one acre, which is a fair density. As I have shown, £19,000 profit was made at that stage on one acre. Meanwhile, the charity had had £16,000 about seven years ago. This shows that the land had certainly done well enough from the profit point of view to the two owners who have held it.
Following the confirmation, application was made by the company under either the 1959 or 1961 Act, but this was refused. The owners appealed and, despite the inspector's recommendation, the Minister upheld the appeal. It is interesting to note what the inspector said. He put down in a long and well-catalogued report his fidnings and then his conclusions, one of them being:
In my opinion the appeal site fulfils a valuable function as an open space amid a mass of high density houses".
This is particularly of importance, for he continued:
It serves art evident need for allotments conveniently placed for these houses which could only be met elsewhere at the expense of public open space. Though physically suitable for housing, I consider that development of this land would be undesirable and that an open space use such as playing fields is the only appropriate alternative use which could reasonably have been expected to have been permitted".
The inspector then recommended that the appeal be dismissed and the certificate confirmed. The Minister turned down


that recommendation and I quote from the letter which the Minister wrote to the solicitors of the company which appealed:
The Minister accepts that the site has value as an open space but he is not satisfied that if it were not being acquired for the continuation of the allotment use it would not appropriately be developed residentially. He cannot see that the appeal site is any differently placed as regards its relationship to the Green Belt than the disused nursery land to the east which is to be developed residentially by the borough council. He does not think its open space value is so clearly established as to justify differing treatment as compared with that other land, and he has therefore decided not to accept the Inspector's recommendation".
In another part of the letter it is stated:
This decision is given solely in the context of an appeal under Section 18 of the Land Compensation Act, 1961, and does not imply any consideration of or conclusion on any proposals for the actual development of the land concerned".
What did that mean? It meant that straight away the value of this land to the council was put up. I can only take the figures charged for land in the vicinity, but it is reasonable to say that it is now worth about £20,000 an acre. This means that any district valuer is bound, under the Act, to specify a figure for this land of up to £240,000. This is over £¼ million, including the £19,000 which has already been paid to the owners of the land for having done virtually nothing.
I am not saying that this is sharp practice. It is business under the law of today. I am not in any way condemning the people who are doing this. I am blaming the Minister for allowing it to go on under his legislation. The council has two courses open to it. It can leave the whole thing alone and allow the owners to have it, and can try to retain a lease of the land for use as allotments. An application to build houses on the land has not yet been submitted, although there have been suggestions in the Press that something along those lines is to happen.
Earlier today we debated the question of Stevenage and it was pointed out that, however many houses were built, it would not relieve the housing situation of any given area. The same applies in this case It is more likely that the number of houses anyone is prepared to put up will attract, say, 600 people into

the area but will not relieve Enfield's housing problem. A review I made in Enfield showed that 90 per cent. of the people came from outside to a new private housing scheme, very many from the Greater London area, so there is not much help there. If it is the intention to build flats to let at the rents they are charging for the 22 flats I have mentioned, it will certainly not help ordinary working people to get houses.
The council's other course is to proceed by way of compulsory purchase order and, if it wishes to develop, the land there will not be dearer than the other land the council has been buying, but that is not the point. The point is that the Minister's reasoning is wrong. I am no lawyer to argue the legal side, but I should like to make this point. Because the nursery site next to this land is used for housing, and the land immediately below has been used for a school, and because there is one acre devoted to high-density housing, this area
… fulfils a valuable function as an open space amid a mass of high density houses.'
That is what the Minister's own inspector said.
In the face of that, how can the right hon. Gentleman say that he has made his decision because he is
… not satisfied that … it would not appropriately be developed residentially … to justify different treatment"?
Surely, the facts I have read out justify different treatment, because the areas round about have recently been built up. One might as well say that because Hyde Park is built up round about it should be treated as an area for residential development. His inspector refers to this mass of high-density housing around this site, so it is reasonable that it should be left for an open space and allotments.
The Minister cannot possibly justify this statement about different treatment, and I must ask him to give a better reason, or to reverse his decision, in this case. I do not know whether he knows, but the Enfield Council is sending an all-party deputation to see him. I hope that he will see the members of that deputation, because they will put the case as well as I can, or better, but we shall not let the matter rest


until we get more satisfaction than we have had in the past.

8.31 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): This is an important and relatively complex matter, and I am grateful for this opportunity of explaining my point of view. It is necessary, first, to clear our minds about the statutory background. Until fairly recently—in fact, until the efforts made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, before he joined the Government—there was a two-level system of land purchase. Local authorities were entitled to buy land compulsorily at a figure often very far below the market value. In 1959, Parliament decided that this two-level system was intolerable, and the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959, established that all purchase of land by compulsory purchase should be on market value basis.
During the passage of that Measure, the Opposition criticised the general position about the betterment system for procuring some of the rises in the value of land for the community, but, subject to that, it accepted that legislation without Division or Amendment. I hope that I am not mis-stating the position. We are, therefore, faced with the background that when a local authority uses its compulsory powers to buy land, it buys, since the passing of the 1959 legislation, at market value.
I come now to the rather awkward procedure known as the certificate of appropriate alternative development. When a local authority buys by compulsory purchase land that has no established planning use—that is, has an open space or another planning use of very low financial value—it is open; indeed, it is open at any stage—for the unwilling vendor of the land, the owner from whom the land is being bought by compulsory purchase, to apply to the planning authority for a certificate of appropriate alternative development.
The reason for that procedure is that it is really unfair between one vendor and another of neighbouring pieces of land, both of which fall to be acquired

compulsorily by an acquiring public authority, that the price received by one of the neighbours, whose land happens to have a planning use of a relatively high value, should be higher than that received by his neighbors whose land happens to have a much lower planning value. It is, of course, always open to the planning authority to give, as it were, a negative reply to the application for a certificate.
Let me give an example. Suppose that a public authority wishes to acquire a piece of agricultural land in the heart of the country for a sewerage works. The owner of the piece of agricultural land may say, "You are going to use it for a sewerage works. You are using powers of compulsory purchase. I think that I deserve more money than the agricultural value. I want a certificate of appropriate alternative development." The planning authority may reply, "No. Agricultural use is what this land is, and what it should be. We will pay agricultural value." I give a hypothetical example.
But when we come inside a highly developed urban area, it is really fortuitous whether a particular piece of land happens to be labelled or desired by the planning authority for open space, or for a cemetery, or for a crematorium or a sewerage works, or something like that with virtually a nil market value, or whether the land might be allowed for residential development.
I am not saying that all land in towns can expect to get a certificate covering residential development if an application is made. I am very far from saying that. There are all sorts of situations which one can imagine in which the land which is used as an open space, which is in the development plan as an open space, and which the acquiring authority wishes to acquire in order to keep as an open space, would not have a certificate of appropriate alternative development for anything but an open space.
It is the duty of the Minister to consider the merits of the case if, after the applicant has unsuccessfully asked the planning authority to give a certificate of a higher value, the applicant appeals to the Minister. In this situation the Minister has to address his mind to whether the land is such that the


Minister cannot imagine its being used for a purpose of higher value than that to which it is proposed to put it. This is the Minister's duty. It is an invidious procedure. It is not an easy one. One has to consider hypothetical circumstances, but it is the way that Parliament has decided is fair as between one landowner and another.
In this case, as the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) says, the land has been used for many years for allotments. Applications, which the hon. Member did not mention, have been made from time to time for housing and have been refused, and the authority has refused to give a certificate of appropriate alternative development. The applicants, that is the owners of the land, appealed to me and I held an inquiry. The hon. Member for Enfield, East has referred to the inspector's report. It was a thorough report of all the facts, but the hon. Member will not question that it is the Minister's prerogative to come to a different conclusion on the facts, and that is what I came to.
Why did I come to a different conclusion? I have here air photographs of the area. What I had to consider in this case was whether it was possible to imagine within good planning that the land in question should have any other use than that of open space or allotments. I had to consider the planning merits, the need of the local authority for allotments and open space, its prospects of satisfying that need elsewhere, and I had to take into account also the overriding needs of the community. The one thing I did not have to take into consideration, under the law, is whether my decision happened to lead to a profit, even a big profit, by the landowner.
In considering these various factors, I did take into account that this particular land did not offer the only opportunity to Enfield of getting allotments and open space. There is plenty of room for disagreement about where the land for open space and allotments should ideally be found, but, faced with the map and with these air photographs which show that this piece of land lies adjacent to hundreds, if not thousands, of acres of open space, much of it in the green belt, I could not convince myself that this

particular piece of land had to be used for allotments and open space.
I am not required to prove to my satisfaction that other places would be better than this. I have only to satisfy myself that, if I gave a certificate for something other than for allotments and open space to this land, and if the result was that the price of the land went up, then the local authority would not be finally barred from getting allotments and open space somewhere else.
I had also to take into account the need, which we all recognise, for more housing land in London. It may be quite true as the hon. Member for Enfield, East said, that Enfield itself is satisfied that it has enough land in hand—I congratulate it—for its own immediate needs over the predictable future. I hope that, in judging its need, Enfield has taken into account the rapidly accelerating rise in the rate of household formation, which means that any given population, even a static population, requires 1 per cent. more houses each year because of younger marriage, greater prosperity and more survival beyond retirement age.
I have to look beyond the needs of Enfield. Enfield is part of Greater London. Under our new Greater London legislation, at will be open to one borough to build houses for its own needs in the land of another borough, and it will be open to the Greater London Council, operating under the consent procedure, to build houses for Greater London needs in individual boroughs. Therefore, I have to look at the Greater London context, not just in the Enfield context.
I was faced, therefore, with a situation in which the facts thrown up by the inquiry held by my inspector revealed that this land was not indispensably and inevitably the only answer for Enfield's need of allotments and open space, and that there is an enormous need for housing land in London.
Both these views which I formed, about other possible allotment land and about the need of land for housing could, of course, have been overriden in my own mind f these were some planning reason against making residential use of this land If, for instance, it lay next to a permanently noxious place


or if, for some other good reason connected with transport or other planning factors, it would not be sensible to allow pepole to live there.
Nothing like that can be argued against this land being used for residential purposes. It is perfectly good land. It is the same sort of land for housing as the land to the east and west which has housing on it. It looks to me no different in quality, in neighbourliness or in environment from the land which has been used by the council on one side for housing. Therefore, I had all the ingredients of a decision that it would not be proper under the statutory procedure to deny a certificate of appropriate alternative development for residential purposes.
That is the explanation of my decision. I now come to the implications of that decision, which are of great interest and importance. It can be said—and I mention this only because I want to face up to it—that this decision has potentially put into the hands of the owners a much more valuable asset. I cannot say more than "potentially" because there might be processes which would require me to make a quasi-judicial decision. It might be that this could come back to me by way either of a purchase notice or of a planning appeal. Therefore, I must not be considered to be making a decision on the proper use of this land.
I was addressing my mind under the Section 17 procedure of the 1961 Act, not to a planning appeal or to a firm decision on what the land could be used for, but to a different question, namely, the certificate of appropriate alternative development. May I put it in this way. Under the certificate procedure, what I was required to address my mind to was not the decision which I would have made had the case been brought before me on appeal, but whether any other use of the land was, within good planning criteria, conceivable.
But let me accept that the decision may, by implication, have increased the value of the land, without presuming in any way to judge what the ultimate planning decision on that land will be. Here we come to the big issue between the parties. Hon. Members opposite will maintain no doubt—and the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) is

present—that it is practicable so to deal with land values as to secure for the community at least part of the enhanced value of the land that such a decision might lead to.
The original method used by the Opposition when they were in power, namely, the development charge system, was not altogether satisfactory, to put it mildly. Since 1951, the Opposition seem to have deserted the idea of a development charge—at least, they have not featured it strongly in their recent propaganda. Now, the favoured method of the Opposition, so far as I can understand it, is a land commission, with funds which would buy land at existing use value, plus a factor for disturbance, plus a sweetener. But, of course, the Opposition are as keenly aware as I or any of my right hon. Friends of the desperate need for land for housing in the big cities, particularly in London. Consequently, I think that any Opposition spokesman would sympathise with my view that, in these circumstances, residential use is certainly not unthinkable.
But suppose that the Opposition were trying to acquire this land. Having said, as I think the hon. Member for Fulham probably will say, that the residential use for this land is not in the circumstances unthinkable—and I am passing the air photographs to the hon. Member for his interest—I wonder how far the Opposition would go if they sought to acquire this land by their favoured process. The hon. Member for Enfield, East, has told us that residential land in the neighbourhood in question fetches £20,000 an acre. I am not taking that as relevant to this particular site, because that is a matter for the district valuer and not for me, but it is an index.
Suppose that in the light of that knowledge the land commission proposed by the party opposite said to the owner, "We will offer you existing use value for an allotment". That is not very much. Suppose that it then says, "We will give you something for disturbance". No disturbance is involved here since the owner of the land is not living on it. Suppose that it then says, "We will give you a sweetener". I wonder what sort of sweetener would have to be paid to get that land. In the light of the 1959 decision of the Opposition not


to vote against the market value basis for compulsory purchase, I wonder whether they would feel free, if they used compulsory purchase, to acquire it forcibly by State action, State tyranny, under the market value basis.
If they did that, they would dry up all the voluntary supply of land. By drying it up, they would increase the value of existing houses. Neither the Labour Party nor the Government wish to do anything deliberately to increase the value of houses, but that would be the by-product of any action that the Labour Party took.
Suppose that by a combination of State action of a high-handed nature, putting this as objectively as I can—[Laughter.] That is what I am doing. It is rare that one gets leisure in an Adjournment debate. Suppose that by a combination of these actions the State secured land below the market value and allowed housing upon it, and provided that that housing could not be the source of profit for the first or second rank of tenants or owners, what a cat's cradle of controls they would have to weave to stop the profit that they had quelled, from the viewpoint of the landowners, seeping through to the occupiers or the inheritors of the purchasers from the landowners.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: The Minister is thoroughly enjoying himself and I appreciate his taking advantage of this Adjournment debate. In reply, however, to a specific case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie), the right hon. Gentleman is developing a full-dress debate on the question of land values in the context of existing legislation. Is he prepared to let us have a debate of a general kind and reply to it later?

Sir K. Joseph: Gladly. I enjoy debates on land values every time, but that is not for me; it is for the usual channels to arrange.
I hope that the House and the hon. Member for Fulham will not misunderstand me. I am open to criticism from the hon. Member for Enfield, East, but I answered carefully and fully the case for which I am responsible, namely, the decision on the certificate. I anticipated, however, that I might then be

told by the hon. Member for Fulham that, while within the statutory procedure my decision was something for me to take and something which I have a right to defend, nevertheless the result only shows how sadly and badly the country needs some such system as the land commission. Had the hon. Member for Fulham spoken first and I spoken now, I should have had his speech to answer. I am only imagining it and trying to answer it in anticipation. He would do the same.

Mr. Loughlin: The Minister cannot discuss legislation in an Adjournment debate.

Sir K. Joseph: I am coming to my final remarks—

Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It is essential to clear up this matter. Do I understand that henceforth we shall be able to talk about legislation in Adjournment debates, in view of the fact that the Minister has been allowed to develop this theme for the last 10 minutes.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): The Standing Order which refers to legislation being discussed on the Adjournment states that it should not be discussed. The rule has, however, recently been slightly relaxed to allow not much more than a passing reference to legislation on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. Loughlin: Further to that point of order. Can you tell me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, why a passing reference to matters involving legislation has been allowed for seven minutes?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I considered that it was a passing reference.

Mr. Michael Stewart: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It should be certain that if I and some of my hon. Friends pass this subject at similar length we shall have the same licence.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may be assured that he will get a fair deal from the Chair.

Sir K. Joseph: I make no excuses, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that I was referring to propaganda and not


legislation. I hope that the hon. Member for Enfield, East will not think that I have tried to avoid the point he was making about my decision. I think that I have explained all that I am called upon to explain in this case and I hope that he now understands the considerations in my mind.

Mr. Mackie: The right hon. Gentleman has given a very much fuller explanation in the House then he did in correspondence, but he has still given the same reasons as he gave in his letter. I did not quote the sentence:
Having considered all possible forms of appropriate alternative development he is satisfied that it would have been appropriate for the land to be developed residentially.
Over the past 10 years, five attempts have been made to obtain this land and yet we now have the situation where this property company gets the benefit while a charity loses.

Sir K. Joseph: I do not know whether any appeals against refusal of housing development were dismissed by my predecessors. But the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the pressing need for more housing land which has become more obvious since the rate of growth in the number of households became obvious in the 1961 census. That must be borne in mind.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I want to clear up first of all the point raised by the Minister about the attitude of the Opposition to the legislation in 1959. The position before that legislation was that, if a private person owning land sold it to another private person, he could get the full market value and did not have to pay a development charge but that if he sold it to a local authority he got very much less. Everyone would accept that that was not a tenable position and not equitable as between one person and another. That is why we did not oppose the 1959 legislation. But we must ask why that situation arose in the first place.
The situation with which that legislation was designed to deal arose because of earlier legislation by the Government in 1953, which destroyed the vital provisions of the Town and Country Planning

Act, 1947. Under that Act, there was the general provision of the development charge, which ensured that the increased value of land due to the community's increased need for it went into the public purse. After that was destroyed in 1953, we got the two-tier system to which the Minister referred and that unsatisfactory position persisted until 1959.
The great evil the Government caused was not by anything that they did in 1959 but in 1953, when they abolished the development charge. I concede at once that, if the Government had come forward in 1953 with a proposal to reduce the development charge to some figure like 75 per cent. instead of 100 per cent., there would have been much to commend that proposal. If the Government had done that our whole position today would have been very much happier.
However, they preferred to create a complete vacuum and that is what the nation is paying for now. I wanted to make that point clear about the attitude of the Opposition towards the 1959 Act, which dealt simply with the narrow issue of whether we wanted a two-tier system and was not concerned with the much wider general issues of whether increases in land values ought to accrue in whole or in part to the community.
Now I turn to the particular case my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield. East (Mr. Mackie) raised and which we are all grateful to him for raising. I did not attempt to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, before the Minister, because, as my hon. Friend had stated the case so fully, I thought that it would be helpful to us to hear the right hon. Gentleman's view first.
I think that I shall carry my hon. Friends with me when I say that we are also grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for stating so clearly what is his view of the matter, but one is left with the impression that the treatment of this case was rather like the trial of Joan of Arc. Everything was done with the greatest possible care. There was an immense attempt to secure strict legality and there was careful consideration of all the rights of the matter. Indeed, there was nothing wrong here—except for the fact that the decision in the end


was wrong from start to finish. That seems to have been what has happened in this case. The Minister argued much about the care with which he had considered, it and his interpretation of the law on the matter. From the point of view of the national welfare, the result is overwhelmingly wrong.
I want to examine the narrower but interesting issue of whether, granted the law with which we put up at the moment in the use and price of land, the Minister acted rightly. On that matter he had to decide on the question of alternative use of land. He himself stated the matter very well when he said that if what were in issue was a piece of land right in the middle of an agricultural area, no one could seriously maintain, if it were proposed to buy that land from him, that it had as an alternative use the building of a block of luxury flats. But, said the Minister, when we are considering land in a built-up urban area, it might be purely fortuitous which piece was regarded for residential development and which was not.
However, we cannot conclude from that that we can regard any piece of land, or all pieces of land, in a mainly built-up area as land of which it can be said that residential development is a proper development for it. The Minister accepted that when he said that not all urban land could expect to have a profitable alternative use applied to it. That means that we cannot justify allocating a profitable alternative use to one piece of land in a town area simply by reference to what has happened to comparable pieces of land in the neighbourhood.
If it is said that because a neighbouring piece of land has been allowed to be used for residential purposes, a piece of land which before it was built on was very like this, therefore we must assume that residential development is a proper alternative use for this piece of land, one is obliged to say in the end of every square inch of land in the town area that residential development is a proper use for it, and that is an untenable position.
There is, therefore, bound to be at some stage something which somebody can say was an arbitrary decision when it is finally said that a piece of land cannot be given a profitable alternative

use. It therefore does not help us to say in this case that neighbouring pieces of land had been used for residential use. That does not help us to reach a decision as to whether this piece of land could have that highly profitable alternative use applied to it.
The Minister said that the way in which he must look at it was that he must accept the more profitable alternative use, unless he could not imagine the land being used for a higher value purpose than it was being used for.

Sir K. Joseph: By good planning criteria.

Mr. Stewart: I had that note in the margin. The first time he said it was without that qualification, and a very horrifying statement it was, because one could imagine land being used for almost anything.
Taken in the qualified form, the question which he must ask himself is what can he imagine within good planning criteria. The Minister invited me to express an opinion on whether this land ought to be used for residential purposes.

Sir K. Joseph: I interrupt the hon. Member because there may be a planning appeal later and he might put us all in an embarrassing position. I asked a slightly different question, which was whether he could say that planning criteria, visible and known to him, were such that the residential use of that land would be unthinkable. That is slightly different.

Mr. Stewart: The answer to that is an answer which should not embarrass anybody. It is simply that I do not regard myself as in any way qualified to pronounce on that question one way or the other. My hon. Friend is qualified to pronounce on it because he knows the area and no doubt has gone into all the facts and perused the necessary documents.
I accept that the Minister's inspector is in a position to express an opinion. I am prepared to believe that the Minister has studied the facts so that he is at any rate entitled to express an opinion, whether we agree with it or not. But it seems to me that nobody ought to express an opinion on this question until he has gone into it, and actually visited the area, which my hon. Friend is in a position to do, and which


the rest of us are not. I do not propose to pronounce on that, but I propose to mention certain things which are relevant.
The first is the history of this land. For a long time it had been used as allotments and as an open space. If I heard my hon. Friend rightly, it changed hands in 1960 at a price which apparently would lead anyone to suppose that that use was to continue. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend mentioned the price at which the charity sold the land in 1960.

Mr. Mackie: Thirteen acres were sold for £7,500.

Mr. Stewart: That is about £600 per acre. There appeared to be in everybody's mind at that time an assumption that the land would continue to be used for the open space purpose for which it had been used for so long.
I think that we are entitled also to notice the inspector's judgment. As the Minister knows, I am not going to dispute that he has a legal right, and the power, to overrule his inspector. I do not think that the House, or anyone, would want the final decision in these matters to lie in the hands of a civil servant who is not answerable to this House, rather than in the hands of a Minister who is, but we are entitled to notice that the inspector was of the view that this land performed a valuable function as an open space, and, what I regard as very important, that it could reasonably be expected by people who had been buying and selling this land in recent years that it would continue to be so used.
In those circumstances, therefore, it seems to me that the local authority is justified in feeling a great sense of shock if it is suddenly told that this land is now to be regarded as land to which this highly profitable alternative use is to be given, with the startling result for the local authority if it proposes to buy the land for public purposes. That is as far as I am going, and as far as anyone who has not been to the site can go, in expressing an opinion whether or not this land ought to be used for that purpose.
I notice that the Minister has been asked to receive a deputation. I hope

that he will do so, and that, in view of the points which I have just quoted, the history of this land, the opinion of his own inspector, and the views that will be put before him when he sees the deputation, he will realise that his judgment in this matter was not necessarily infallible.
I turn now to what, from the nation's point of view, is an even larger and more important question. Suppose the Minister—and I say this purely for the sake of my subsequent argument—is right in his judgment that this land ought to be used for residential purposes, or that that is a reasonable alternative use for it. The startling thing is that if he is right, the result of that under our present law is that this land, which a few years ago was changing hands at about £600 an acre, is now worth about £20,000 an acre. If anyone is going to build houses on it that is what he will have to pay for the land, and that price will be reflected in the prices of those houses or in the rents paid for them. That result follows even if the Minister's decision in this matter is right.
It was on that point of mine that the Minister proceeded to argue whether we could do anything to remedy that situation. He proceeded to that part of his speech which raised certain questions of order. I have heard previous attempts in Adjournment debates to try to refer to legislation which the existing Government might possibly introduce, but I have never before heard in an Adjournment debate an attempt to refer to legislation to be introduced by the next Government. But I shall be very careful not to abuse any indulgence you may show to us, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I shall do no more than reply to the points made by the Minister. Since he has made them, I think it permissive, under the rules of order, for me to reply to them.
He asked us to consider what would happen under our proposals. He referred to the situation that would arise if the owner of the land at some stage obtained the necessary planning permission to develop it and to build residential property on it. Under our proposal, the Crown Land Commission, with the granting of that permission, would step in to buy the land, and would


pay for it a price containing three elements—the present use value; anything appropriate for disturbance, or for contingent losses, and what the Minister reasonably referred to as a "sweetener".
A figure would be settled on somewhere between the present use value and the full market value that the owner could obtain at present, which would give the desired result that part, at any rate, of the increased value of the land due to the fact that the community needs it would go into the public purse. The Minister was worried because he felt that the owner, seeing what would happen, would decide not to apply to have the land built on at all, so that the land would remain undeveloped. The Minister asked what sort of sweetener would be enough. I would point out that the owner would have to remember that if he obtained permission to develop he would obtain the present use value and the sweetener, whereas if he did not he would never get any more for the land than its present use value. Therefore, it would still pay him to develop the land.
It would not pay him quite as much as it pays him under the present arrangements, but are we seriously going to say that it is impossible to make legislative arrangements to enable land to be brought forward for development without permitting a man to sell in 1964 a piece of land for 40 times what he paid for it in 1960? I cannot believe that this country is so bankrupt of legislative genius as to think that we have to pay these enormous sums of money. That is the answer to the Minister's question. It would still pay the owner, under our proposals, to allow the land to be developed. It would not pay him the fantastic amount that, admittedly, it pays him at present.
The Minister then inquired, "Let us suppose that the owner, realising that fact, allowed the land to be developed and the Land Commission bought it". Under our proposals, the Land Commission would then lease the land to somebody who would build houses on it, and who might be the present owner, although not in every case. Here again I speak without prejudice, because there are various ways of handling the

problem, each of which has something to be said for it.
The State, acting through the Land Commission, could say, "When we lease this land we shall lease it at full market value." That would mean, as the Minister was quick to point out, that the houses would cost as much in price as at the present time. But, of course, a revenue would be coming to the State which is now going into private pockets. With that happening in many parts of the country the State would have a fund to help it, for example, to enable people who wish to buy houses to borrow money at a lower rate of interest. In that way, therefore, the purchasers of houses—people looking for homes—would be helped. It would not be done directly by helping particularly particular persons on one site. But none the less it would be a very real help.
The alternative method would be for the Land Commission to lease the land to the developer with a condition in the lease governing the price or rent to be charged for the houses to be built on the site. In that case some at any rate of the gain which the State has got by not allowing wholesale profiteering in land is passed on to the persons who would live in the houses on that site.
Admittedly, that requires a certain amount of thought and consideration, but I cannot see that it can be ruled out as an impracticable proposal. If the Minister is going on trying to argue that everything we propose is impracticable, where is he left? He is left either with the situation that, despite the present housing need—the right hon. Gentleman spoke most eloquently of the housing need in London—he is still saying, "I am still prepared to allow to continue, without lifting a finger to stop it, an arrangement whereby the land needed to supply this housing need can multiply 40 times in value in less than four years." Surely, for a Government which claims to be energetic, and for a Minister who is energetic and imaginative, that is a dreadful confession of failure.
The other alternative is this. We have put forward proposals starting on the assumption that if we give the landowner something which the Minister called a sweetener, there will be a large volume of voluntary transactions. The


Minister gloomily assumed that there would not, and said that therefore we should be driven to the State tyranny of compulsory purchase—

Sir K. Joseph: I said below the market value. I did not call compulsory purchase itself tyranny.

Mr. Stewart: All I would say is that if the market value of something is 40 times what I paid four years ago and the State says that I cannot have quite all that because there are public needs to be considered, I cannot feel that that is accurately described as an act of tyranny.
If the Minister rejects our proposals which work on the assumption of many voluntary transactions, and if he says that any attempt compulsorily to purchase below the market value is tyranny, he is left with a situation in which he himself will allow profiteering to go completely unchecked. The right hon. Gentleman knows better than that, because in an expansive moment, towards the end of last year, he drew attention to the fact that if we are really to deal with the housing problem, there has to be a good deal of advance purchasing of land by public authorities. How does the Minister imagine that that is to work?
If whatever agency of Government is dealing with it makes a survey of a region and decides, in order to meet the housing need, that a good deal of land now undeveloped will be required for development and then proceeds—whether it is the local authority or the central Government—to set to work to buy it, does the Minister imagine that the owners of the land will calmly sell voluntarily to him at the present market value? They will know perfectly well why he is in the market and will simply wait until they can get the kind of prices which they get at the moment.
The Minister's method of dealing with this will work only on the assumption that we give to the public authority power to say, "This land may well be needed in order to help to solve the housing problem at any time during the next 10 years. We are prepared to buy it from its present owners for a price probably well above what it is worth now, its present use value, but very

distinctly below what he would get if we waited until some public authority was obliged to buy it because of pressure of housing development on it."
The Minister's proposal will not work unless there is power of compulsory purchase. His approach to the problem relies very much more than ours does on the use of the weapon of compulsory purchase. I beg the Minister not to join with the more absurd nonsense talked by some of his hon. Friends about our proposals, because he lives with the housing problem. He knows that if there is not to be an even worse scandal than there is at present the nation has to find some answer to this arrangement. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East naturally, as we understand, has a constituency interest in this matter, but many of us are obliged to look at the wider issues. I hope he will accept what I said earlier. It is not for me to say whether this particular piece of land ought to be built on or not. The vital thing is that what has happened there illustrates the appalling profiteering which can go on at present.

Mr. William Baxter: When the development plan was made by the local authority, land speculators got to know as quickly as possible what land was designated for housing within the development plan. They plunged in and bought those lands which were designated. Now people desirous of building a house or a cottage are held to ransom by those who purchased the land. They must not only get the land from them at a very high price but must also have the house or cottage built by the person or organisation concerned. This is a complete racket from beginning to end and the quicker it is stopped the better. This is another instance of land speculation. The church authorities hold on to this land and speculators will get 40 times more value in four or five years. It is a disgrace.

Mr. Stewart: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. That is the position. This is the profiteering which is going on at the moment. We have put forward a remedy. The Minister has suggested certain objections which, I have pointed out, are not valid. I have pointed out that if he rejects our proposals he hangs


round the neck of the housing programme a fearful problem of unnecessary expenditure. If he goes on with his proposals he may find himself pilloried as a far more drastic tyrant and the instrument of an all-powerful State, more than anyone on this side of the House.
One regrets that if this land is to be the subject of so much profiteering the original charity did not manage it more properly. I still do not understand how on the evidence it—or whoever advised it—made what seems to be something of an error of judgment. That illustrates an important point. We do not get anywhere in this problem by holding up to personal execration the people who profit from this situation. The nation should blame itself for allowing this to happen.

Mr. W. Baxter: It should blame the Government.

Mr. Stewart: The Government at the moment, but the nation as a whole before long will have an opportunity to change the Government. The responsibility will then lie on the nation as a whole. It is not the least use allowing a legal situation in which a man can legally sell land in 1964 for forty times what he paid for it in 1960, and then calling him a villain when he takes advantage of it. In the lottery which land prices are today some of the beneficiaries are private persons, but every now and again it happens that the beneficiary is somebody with whom one would sympathise—a charity, a trade union, a working men's club, even a local Conservative association, if one could extend the meaning of a charity that far. It may be anybody.
The point is not an attack on the particular persons, but a criticism of the system which allows this to happen. It is because attention has been focused on this that we are all so grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East for raising the matter tonight.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OFFICES (DISPERSAL)

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: The subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) and the competent exposition from my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) have raised very important issues which should be decided at a far greater pace than that at which they are being decided as a result of the Flemming Committee, which was announced in the House by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury last July.
One of the things we can do to relieve the pressure on land in London is to step up the dispersal of office building and Government Departments from the Metropolis. Yesterday, an Answer to a Question made it clear that in 1965–66 there is to be some dispersal of Government staff from London to Hastings. This is unrealistic. There should be a dispersal of buildings and people from the London area to much further afield than Hastings. This proposal merely moves people about a chessboard within the congested area. It would be far better to move them up to the North-East, particularly to Scotland. The Minister bears some responsibility for planning as well as for the issues involved in housing. He has some responsibility for planning over the United Kingdom. The Scottish Department in Edinburgh and the Treasury have some responsibility for the dispersal of offices and Government Departments from the London area.
Three hours ago—two and a half hours ago perhaps—I notified the Treasury that I would raise the issue here tonight on the Adjournment. We have a serious problem in Scotland. We have 101,000 unemployed. Vast areas of our land are undeveloped. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East has given one instance of the frightful exploitation of land values in London because of the pressure of population.

Mr. George Lawson: Do I understand my hon. Friend to say that three hours ago he notified the Treasury that in the event of this debate finishing earlier he would raise this question, a


question with which the Treasury has been very much concerned? Is it the case that, after having been given three hours notice, it has not been possible for the Treasury to get a spokesman here to reply to the debate? Does not this suggest that the Treasury is not showing very much interest in this matter?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am obliged to the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) for his intervention. All these observations, as far as I have heard them—not for very long—are in order, subject to views about remedies requiring legislation. I am not suggesting that it is out of order, because things have passed in my absence.
Our custom has always been for the Chair to deprecate the introduction of topics of which notice has not been given. I have no doubt that the character of the notice given by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) to the Treasury was that, in the event of the debate upon this Adjournment Motion concluding, he would then raise the topic. I do not think that it would be fair to say that that meant that he had given notice that it was to be dealt with in this current debate.

Mr. Bence: Thank you for that Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and, having given the Treasury notice and seeing a Treasury spokesman now in his place, I trust that I will not be infringing the rules of the House if I treat this matter as one for Treasury responsibility, particularly since that Department is responsible for the policy of the dispersal of offices and Government Departments from the London area.
We learned yesterday from a Parliamentary Answer that the Ministry of Public Building and Works is to move a Department to Hastings. Hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies have for years been pressing that in view of the unemployment in the North and in Scotland the Government should do more to urge industry to go North. The Flemming Report has given the Government an opportunity to take a lead in this matter and to move some of their Departments to Scotland. The suggestion to remove parts of the Post Office,

particularly the research section, to Glasgow or Edinburgh, where facilities are available, was made some time ago.
Although the Government have directed one Department to go to Hastings, which is on the perimeter, I hope that they will consider the terrific unemployment in Scotland and other parts and will urge industries, large and small, along with Government Departments to go there. Many of my hon. Friends here tonight have higher rates of unemployment in their constituencies than I have in mind. However, in the new town of Cumbernauld, in my constituency, there is some unemployment. This new town is an example of the type of place to which Government Departments could be dispersed, as could other organisations from London and the South-East.
Under the Labour Government, the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance was moved to Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and I do not think that there has been any resultant weakening of the Ministry's service. After living in Scotland for 13 years, and being in contact with various Scottish administrative organisations, I am convinced that there would be a considerable increase in the efficiency of many Government Departments if they were transferred there. The Government would be doing a great service to the Scottish people, and also to the people around here who require housing.
We have heard this evening a story of frightful exploitation resulting from excessive pressure of population. It is frightening to think of families from Scotland and the North seeking employment in the London area when we hear of such a case. This tremendous increase in land values must inevitably fall on those who occupy the houses built, and even if they themselves do not bear the full burden the ratepayers and taxpayers must help to bear it. Pressure on land can be reduced by a massive dispersal of Government Departments and industrial concerns. That would redistribute our population and obviate some of the injustices and social evils created by excessive pressure on land.

9.36 p.m.

Mr. William Baxter: I support the plea for greater consideration being given to the idea of Government Departments being moved out of London. The accounts division of one of the Ministries is to move to Hastings. That is a very delightful spot, but if the Channel Tunnel is built, the whole of that corner of England will be over-populated and there will be just as much congestion in it as there now is in London. Has the Treasury given full consideration to that aspect?
Many Government Departments could be well situated in Scotland, where we have many advantages of beautiful countryside and land that is not too expensive. We heard earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) of land not very far from London changing hands at £30,000 an acre. That inevitably adds very considerably to the cost of housing. The Government will have to pay much the same price at Hastings, but I can assure the Treasury Minister that West Stirlingshire, which is designated as a development district, has sites, not only for office accommodation but for any staff who may be moved if the Department cannot get sufficient employees from the area.
The Government are very keen to have certain things in Scotland, such as the Polaris base. They seem to think that they are justified in putting in Scotland things that are not wanted in the south of England. Here is an opportunity to show that they are broadminded and considerate enough to establish in Scotland some of the things which we desire and will carry out peaceful and not warlike pursuits and will not leave our people the first to be vulnerable in the event of an atomic war. We would be happy if the Polaris base was shifted to Hastings and this office accommodation was put up in West Stirlingshire. Unfortunately, in this Parliament there is a great tendency to try to push Scotland right out of consideration in all these things. Some of these matters are paltry but some are large and important.
Only a week or two ago we found that the Army records of the Highland Division in Perth were being moved to the south. It is fantastic that Members

of Parliament who are supporters of a Government should be so insipid in their attitude and so weak-kneed and lacking in backbone and determination and that their preoccupation should be just a matter of trying to obtain honours and get on with the powers-that-be. It is fantastic that they should be prepared to support the Government on issues like this. Here is an opportunity for them to show a little spirit of independence and Scottish grit in demanding from the Government a reversal of this decision.
I do not know when the decision was taken that this office accommodation was to be built in Hastings. It was reported to the House only yesterday in reply to a Question—probably a Question arranged by the Minister. [An HON. MEMBER: "A stooge Question."] I should like to see the stooges opposite do a little more for our country. I suggest to those who do not come from Scotland that they should seriously consider the dispersal of offices from the centre of London to other parts of England and Scotland, but not to an area which will be overcrowded if the Channel Tunnel scheme is implemented.
I know that many of my hon. Friends want to speak on this subject and I appeal to the Government to reconsider this matter and try to put these accounts offices in a place like Kilsyth or Bannockburn or some other area in Scotland with good road and rail communications to the South. We in Scotland could do the job which the Government seek to have done by transferring the work to Hastings.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Guy Barnett: In no sense do I want to detract from the case so ably put by my hon. Friends from Scotland but, as is pointed out in the Report by Sir Gilbert Flemming, the problem of the dispersal of offices is of nation-wide character. Strongly as I sympathise with the case put from Scotland. I think that this matter needs to be pursued on a wider national basis.
Why does the Minister of Public Building and Works choose Hastings? One can commute from Tunbridge Wells to Hastings, and Tunbridge Wells is already growing extremely fast because one can commute from there to London. I know the area well. I was brought up there. The population in the whole of that part


of the country is increasing rapidly. I was interested in the possible consequences to the whole of the South of England of the Channel Tunnel, to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire, (Mr. Baxter) drew attention.
On 1st August last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) asked this question:
Is it not essential that the Government should do something more vigorous here and not just on the outskirts of London? If the Government do not set an example, private industry can hardly be expected to follow it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st August, 1963; Vol. 682, c. 628.]
Obviously, the Government ought to set a proper example. It would not cost them very much.
Some weeks ago, I drew attention to the need for more industry in South-West England. I think that the Minister has as much interest in that part of the country as I have. One of the points I made on that occasion was that we shall not get new industry into the area unless transport facilities are improved. But, of course, Government Departments, the Ministry of Public Building and Works and the like, do not need transport for the adequate performance of their work. It would be perfectly easy to transfer some Government Departments or offices to places like the South-West. There would be no difficulty and no need to improve communications for that purpose. The work could be done just as well as other Government Departments and offices are already doing theirs in the provinces now.
Why have the Government chosen Hastings? I begin to wonder whether it is all part of the framework of Government policy, nowadays announced by the Prime Minister, when he said that "everything that we say or do from now on must be done with the General Election in mind". Can it be that the Government are worried about holding Hastings at the General Election? It seems quite obvious that they have given up any hope of winning back Dorset, South.
Dorset is a very attractive part of the country. It is certainly better than Hastings—and I say that as a Sussex man. There are plenty of places in the South-West which could be very attractive to Government Departments. I mean

this very seriously and I ask the Minister to consider it urgently. Admittedly, the South-West suffers from appalling transport facilities, but here is a first-class opportunity for the Government to pursue a vigorous policy, as recommended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North, to establish easily dispersed Government offices in areas into which at first, perhaps, it is not easy for private industry to move. Such action by the Government would act as an encouragement to private industry later to move where it is needed.
I hope that what I have said will not be taken as any sort of contradiction of what has been said by my hon. Friends from Scotland. The policy which we are urging should be pursued as a national policy and a real attempt should be made to disperse Government Departments or offices to those parts of England, Scotland and Wales where employment is badly needed.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Archie Manuel: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) on his initiative in arranging this further Adjournment debate tonight. I feared at one time that we should have a completely empty Front Bench opposite or that the only spokesman would be the junior Scottish Whip. But he is aided now by the Minister of State, Board of Trade, and, on the other side of the Minister of State, to bolster him up, is sitting another Whip. With one either side, the Minister is well whipped before he starts.
I can see no case against the dispersal of Government offices and Departments away from London unless it can be proved conclusively that their removal would adversely affect the functioning and effectiveness of the Ministries concerned. Our duty in the House is to do all in our power to steer away from London every possible activity, not only Government offices and Government Departments, in order to try to mitigate in every possible way the pressures which are becoming increasingly evident in the South. In the years ahead the transport problems of London will be insoluble. We should do everything we can to relieve the increasing congestion caused by too much transport on the London streets.
In every borough in the London area we see large boards which record the number of deaths and accidents which occur on the roads each month. They are not very edifying sights for overseas visitors. I am sure that every hon. Member agrees that this appalling death and injury rate must be reduced. Is it not nonsensical that people should come into London every morning, in trains which are packed, from towns 60 and 70 miles away and leave again in the evening? There is congestion not only in London, but in its surrounding environs. It has become impossible for people to secure homes in London and, therefore, they have to travel from Southend, Hastings and Brighton every day to earn their livelihood in London. This is fantastic. It is wasteful that people should have to commute in this way in order to earn their living.
There is the increasing problem of trying to provide homes for the people attracted to London from Scotland, the North-East and Wales by the magnet of better and more jobs and higher salaries and wages. How much further will this awful sprawl go? Will it be contained? Is there any blueprint for the location of industries and the provision of houses? We have been talking about this problem for 20 years. It is getting worse. Nothing is happening about it because the Government are not determined enough to face up to private enterprise and profit-making bodies in order to arrive at a solution.
Is there any plan to arrest this sprawl and to contain the industrial and housing development which is flowing out of London and swallowing up villages and townships and covering many acres with bricks and mortar in every direction? This is a most depressing picture. Those of us who know the scenic beauties of Scotland and our flowing rivers and lovely glens are depressed when we come South and look not at the stonework to which we are accustomed in Scotland, but at these acres of bricks and mortar.
There is another side of the coin. What we are arguing about is the dispersal from London of every possible kind of activity. We must recognise the enormous beneficial effects which could accrue from this in certain areas in England, Wales and Scotland. Many

townships are decaying and are becoming derelict areas. The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) is present. There is a derelict area in his constituency. This is happening because the major and older industries are running down and new ones are not coming in. Depopulation is taking place at a serious rate, and it is increasing each year.
The Minister of State, Board of Trade, must recognise that in each of these areas the local authorities have invested a great deal of wealth. There has been much capital expenditure to provide municipal houses, hospitals, schools, libraries and clinics and this capital expenditure has to be repaid over 60 years. Each year, the rate yield is becoming less because the people move out, and the local authority has this enormous burden.
If those areas were getting these activities which are not needed in London but which cause congestion and difficulty here, they could bring new life to those areas. Whether they were in Scotland, Wales or elsewhere in England I would not mind. Any area which is decaying from depopulation and where the local authority is getting into a morass of debt because, as a result of the mess caused by the Government, it does not have a sufficient rate yield, would be delighted to have these establishments located in its area. This is a matter which should be looked at carefully, and I hope that we shall be given a considered reply.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Edward Milne: I, too, am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) for raising the question of the dispersal of Government offices to other areas, because while I naturally stake a claim for the north-east of England and my own area, the general argument contained in the idea of dispersal is sound not only for the areas to which the Departments would be dispersed, but for the country as a whole. In his brief incursion into the North-East in his endeavour to bolster up our economy, the Lord President of the Council discovered this in no uncertain manner.
During the time of the Labour Government between 1945 and 1951, the Ministry of National Insurance was sited in the North-East, in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. If any attempt was made to shift that


Department anywhere else, there would be a protest from the employees there, particularly those who were moved from London to operate the Department.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) has referred to scenic beauties and other things. While, as a Scot, I am proud of the beauties of by homeland, they can be equated with the country and seaside scenery of Northumberland.
There are a number of reasons why the dispersal of Departments in the manner indicated in the earlier speeches of this debate would not only assist the economy, but would bring some sort of civilising influence upon the backward areas around London. I have mentioned one example of movement from the South to the North in the appointment of the Lord President of the Council to draw up his plans for the North-East.
Only two weeks ago, the B.B.C. sent a "Gallery" team from London to the North-East to look at some of our customs and habits and to draw a picture of the likely industrial development of the North-East. I said at the time, and I repeat, that it would have been far better for the B.B.C. to have used its excellent teams in the North-East to draw a realistic picture of what could be done. We were told that what was lacking in the North-East—

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacArthur.]

Mr. Milne: In the broadcast, as an example of what the North-East was lacking in comparison with London, we were shown civilising things like striptease clubs and chemin-de-fer betting-shops.
We have often raised in the House the question of attracting new industries to the North-East, Scotland, the South-West and Wales. There are solid economic arguments for such moves. In addition, the pressure of opinion in those areas have moved the Government, at this late stage, into indicating that they accept

the desirability of so doing, which is a good thing, and they have produced two White Papers, on development in Central Scotland and on industrial development in the North-East.
If they are really sincere, the obvious thing to do is to carry out the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) and consider the dispersal of Government Departments as an example to industrialists. This would show that, not only did they believe it a good thing for industry to move to these areas, but that it was a good thing to set up certain Government Departments there as well. I hope that they will also—although I doubt whether they will now have the time—look at the suggestion that Government factories should be set up in these areas as well.
In Blyth there is a Government advance factory, which was built with a flourish of trumpets. It still awaits a tenant. Other factories have been built by the local authority. One of these is already tenanted and the others are waiting for tenants who will move in in the near future. If the Government had dispersed Government Departments earlier, and had backed up the initiative of local authorities, they would not be in the sorry mess that they are in now.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson: I thank the Minister of State at the Board of Trade for coming along to the debate. I know that the notice given was very short, but, in extenuation of his finding himself in this position tonight, he will appreciate that there is great pressure on time in the House and that it would be a great pity if any available were not used. I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) on making use of the time that we have had available to us tonight.
My hon. Friend raised a question of considerable importance. We all believe that it should be the Government's concern to bring about dispersal of Government Departments from London. None of us claim that they should all move out of the capital, for we appreciate that many must remain there, and as a Scottish Member I am not asking that those which can be dispersed should all move to Scotland. I associate myself with my


hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Barnett) in his argument for his area.
We understand that there are about 133,000 employees in Government Departments at headquarters, the great bulk of them concentrated in London. The accounts division of the Ministry of Public Building and Works is to be dispersed from Central London. It is the division employing 1,000 people. But it is going to Hastings, to that very part of the country which is most crowded. If there is a part of the country other than London which is in great need of some decanting, it is the South-East. This is an area growing even more rapidly than the Midlands; yet the Ministry of Public Building and Works has decided to send the headquarters of its accounts division to Hastings.
How was this decision taken? We understood that the Treasury was more or less the overlord of this matter. What consultations were there? Why was not some public notice given? All that we had was a Question answered in the House yesterday to say that this Department was moving to Hastings. Is this some "old boy" network? Have the civil servants and the others concerned decided that, while they must get out of London, they will go to what they consider to be a desirable place? How was this decision reached? What factors led to this choice?
I am not arguing that Scotland should have been chosen, but it is fantastic that the move should have been in the direction of an area which is already overcrowded. I hope that it is not a firm decision and that we shall hear more about it and that we shall find that a mistake has been made and that the matter has been reconsidered. If this is what is meant by dispersal, we might as well continue to have these Departments in London.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: Whether we come from Scotland, Newcastle, Rotherham in South Yorkshire, or South Dorset, we all agree that this is a tremendous problem which has been growing in the South-East of England in the 1950s and 1960s until we now have a tremendous growth of

population, the growth of a high-cost area with the prospects of a huge conurbation stretching from Dover probably to Birmingham by the mid-1970s. This is an area in which it is extremely expensive to live, extremely expensive and difficult to get a house, and often difficult to get proper staff.
For example, I understand that many firms in London—and I have heard that Government Departments have the same problem—have to pay considerably higher rates for qualified shorthand typists than those which are paid in many parts of the North. Is it not dreadful that qualified girls in the North, as in Rotherham, cannot find office jobs and have to take jobs considerably below their abilities, or come to London and live in basements and bed-sitters for which they pay exorbitant rents?
Here we have a decision, which the Government call planning, to move a Government Department to a pleasant watering place, Hastings, where the population is increasing at an enormous rate. I am horrified by this state of affairs. Anyone who travels down from the North on Monday mornings, on Friday afternoons, or on Sunday nights, meets hundreds of people whose homes are in the North and who have been brought up and trained there, but who are moving down to London, having sold their houses at a reasonable price. They give up all that to move into this ant-heap of tube stations, underground trains and traffic congestion, which does not exist in the North except in some of the big cities.
It is a dreadful tragedy that so many people are forced to leave their native environment, and I think that we in the North have an environment and cultural pattern of which we can be proud, just as my hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies can be proud of their environment and culture. This is a case of the Government not setting a good example to private industry, because they are proposing to move a Government Department to a pleasant watering place. The move may suit the civil servants concerned. It may suit the Government's travesty of planning, but it does not suit me or my hon. Friends.
One of the strong arguments for moving out of the crowded South-East is that by doing so one avoids the necessity of travelling in crowded conditions. I know of nothing more unpleasant than having to strap-hang for a long journey first thing in the morning, and we know from sociological and medical reports that the strain on people who have to travel in such conditions is quite considerable, and is the cause of so much absence from work and mental fatigue among the population in this area.
I sympathise with the problems that exist in the development districts, in Scotland, in South Dorset, and in Blyth, and when one considers the position as a whole, one realises that what we need is a detailed overall social and economic plan, such as we on this side of the House have often suggested, and which the party opposite has recently started talking about. Hon. Gentlemen are at last being converted to a form of planning, but here we have an example of the Government's planning—moving a Government Department to Hastings.
We need an overall plan for the country as a whole, and perhaps I might use my constituency as an example of what is happening. I know that we have to deal with areas of high unemployment, but other areas also have problems with which we must deal, even though they may be considered small ones in relation to those which exist in other areas. Many of these areas are not at the moment development districts, but during the next decade conditions may develop to such an extent that they, too, will have to be treated as such.
In Rotherham, and indeed throughout the whole of South Yorkshire, the recent population projection shows that the numbers are increasing at a rapid rate. In recent months I have spoken to youth employment officers in my constituency, and looked at the estimates that have been made for the area. It is obvious that already well-qualified office staff cannot find jobs in that area and are having to move to places like London. There is chronic under-employment among qualified girls and women in my constituency. If the Government were to move a small Government Department, or even part of a Department, into that area, it would help to deal with

this pimple on the body economic. We need overall planning in the areas to which my hon. Friends have referred and I ask the Government to give this matter their proper consideration. We need a detailed picture of the economic needs of all the areas of the country so that, having agreed upon the need and upon the equitability of dispersal, we know where industries should go. In my constituency we have the land, we have the housing, which is relatively cheap, and we have good communications. I suggest that here is a case where the Government should take an overall look at the picture, rather than move into Hastings. Let them go to the North, to Scotland, or to South Dorset, as my hon. Friends have suggested.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: This matter arises out of our continued concern for the well-being of Scotland and the solution of the problems of Scotland and other areas of considerable unemployment. We had hoped that the solution of this problem would fit in with the latest advice given to the Government about congestion, and especially with reference to the Buchanan Report. If there was one area that the Buchanan Report highlighted as an area that was already congested, and which ought to keep out of, in the matter of the dispersal of offices from London, I would have thought that it was the south-east corner of England.
I shall say no more about location. It is many years now since the right hon. Gentleman who is now Minister of Power said, in a debate on Scottish employment and industry, that we should think of things other than industry—of office jobs, and so on. He said that we should be able to disperse from London to Scotland. He said that the telephone was readily available, and that teleprinters and other means of communication were there. He said that there was no reason why the headquarters of departments, public or private, should be in London.
We pushed and pushed, and eventually, after Questions and suggestions, a departmental inquiry was set up. It was on 18th July last year when, strangely enough in a Written Answer to the same Member who received the


Written Answer yesterday, we had from the Government the gist of the Flemming Report. I have it in front of me. I admit the complexities and the difficulties of transferring existing staffs, because personal problems arise. But in the light of what was said then, and in the light of what has been impressed upon the Government about the need for wide dispersal and for the creation of office jobs and similar jobs in Scotland and elsewhere, I am not satisfied that the Government have taken the right decision in this case.
I gather that 1,000 persons are to be employed at Hastings by the Ministry of Public Building and Works and that—about 600 will be moved from London. In the long run, however, this will create a new avenue of employment within the area. We know from experience how things develop from these beginnings. Such a move would be invaluable for some of our newly designated growth areas in Scotland. There are places in Scotland which offer quite unparalleled opportunities in respect of education, health and social wellbeing. If the Government accept the implications of the Buchanan Report we shall have to face a complete upset in all the aspects of social planning. But in this case the Government have set their face right against those implications. I am sorry that this decision has been taken by the Government and announced so quietly. I had hoped that we could have had a thoroughgoing debate on the Buchanan Report and its implications, particularly in relation to London.
I wish to thank the hon. Gentleman for being present. He will be familiar with both aspects of this matter. He was at the Treasury when the Flemming Report was published. Now he has responsibilities at the Board of Trade for other sides of industry and development. We also have present another Minister with Treasury responsibility as well.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Green): And Board of Trade experience, too.

Mr. Ross: And Board of Trade experience. We all remember him very well in Dundee and how he helped us to win that by-election.
But we would rather have sensible decisions taken by the Government, be

it in relation to jute or to dispersal. We think that this is a wrong decision and that it is a disservice not only to areas in Scotland, the North-East and elsewhere, but to London and the whole aspect of planning which we have raised.
When this was first read this morning in HANSARD, one hon. Gentleman sought leave to put a Private Notice Question about it and another thought of trying to move the Adjournment of the House. Such is its importance. It is not something which we suddenly thought up. We have been pursuing this matter for a long time and we are very angry about it.

10.22 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edward du Cann): May I say, first, how much I appreciated the remarks of the hon. Member for Mother-well (Mr. Lawson) and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). I was grateful for the welcome I received when I came into the House. I was even more grateful for their most courteous additional welcome.
I wish also to congratulate the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) on his ingenuity in raising this matter on the Adjournment. I am bound to say that I have enjoyed the debate and found it extremely interesting. I would go further and say that this matter is obviously of extreme importance. The question of the dispersal of offices from London should be taken seriously by the House at all times and the position should remain under review by all who are interested.
I understand the general sense of the debate on the part of those hon. Members who have made contributions. I appreciate very well that although hon. Members have deep constituency interests in a matter of this sort, on the whole they are not pleading for their constituencies but wish to be satisfied continuously that there is a policy and that the policy is adequate and being adhered to. Having made those general remarks, I will try in the short time available to make a number of points by way of answer.
We start from the position that the total of civil servants on headquarters staffs amount to 133,000 and of those 20 per cent. of the headquarters staff of Government


Departments already work out of London. In all, three-quarters of all civil servants work in regional and local offices the majority of which are right out of London. A lot has been said about the Flemming Report. This is an extremely complex matter. Everybody cannot be suddenly moved out of London. Aspects of hardship and efficiency must be considered. As Flemming suggested some can be moved right out of London, some can be moved outside and a short distance away and some just to the periphery of London. What is important is that this continuous process is taking place and that people are being moved to the right spots. Never mind the complexities for the moment; these things have to be done and it is urgent that they should be done.
As the House will know progress is being made. It was even being made before we had the Flemming Report. The numbers referred to by Flemming were 18,000. The first moves in those proposals will take place within the year. Meantime, under moves planned earlier 5,000 civil servants are being moved to places such as Durham, Chesterfield, Southend, Titchfield and Basildon. I am glad that the Government are setting a good example. I want the House to be reassured that subject only to the practical difficulties the Government do not have closed minds, and will not close their minds on this subject.
It is, however, not only a question of dispersal of Government offices. It is important to see that offices of private industry should move out wherever it is practicable. I am grateful for this debate in that connection because if it is possible for the view of this House to be heeded by private enterprise it certainly should be. The Government have set up the Location of Offices Bureau, which is working, and working well. The Government would like to see more progress made and we shall do our best to see that it is made.
On the subject of Hastings those Members who have referred to that move would wish me to say this. I shall of course refer this matter at once, and bring the speeches made in this debate, to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I certainly undertake to see that the matter

is looked at afresh and that hon. Members who have expressed particular interest are afforded a detailed note thereafter.
Having said those general words about dispersal of offices, perhaps I might deal with certain other points. One of the points made in the debate with which I have the greatest sympathy was that made by hon. Members who spoke of the attractiveness of the regions they represent in this House. How very true that is. Having returned—only just—from a tour of certain factories in East Anglia this evening, one with 90 per cent. turnover in its export record and another with 50 per cent., one at Bury St. Edmunds and one in Newmarket, I could not help feeling how fortunate those people are who live and work outside London. Hon. Members who have spoken about difficulties in London know how true that is.
I was asked about the Channel Tunnel. The Government have this matter under consideration, but, frankly, I am not convinced that the building of a Channel Tunnel would worsen the position. Indeed, I think that there would be great advantages for businesses a long way from the South-East if a Channel Tunnel were built because it would facilitate their transport of goods to the Common Market countries. I am not satisfied that the building of a Channel Tunnel would be merely an attraction for the South-East. I think that it would be rather an attraction for the North-East.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) about London sprawl. He asked if there were any blueprints for dealing with that problem. He will remember the Abercrombie plan. Government Departments are now engaged on a study of the problems of the South-East and it is hoped to publish that study before long. It is being worked on urgently. Maybe when it is published we can have the debate to which the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) referred and we shall be able to go further into a large number of these matters.
I was interested by the point raised by the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Barnett) about the South-West. I hope to be making a tour following the


Secretary of State's tour of the South-West during March. I am looking forward to that because the hon. Member and I share a common interest in that part of the world.
I wanted also to say a word or two about the economic situation in general. It is plain that the dispersal of offices is one aspect of regional development to which we must pay attention. It is important in the context of the development of the economy and of the work which the Government with the approval

of the whole House are doing in connection with growth areas and areas of high unemployment. I have had less time to answer the debate than usual, but I make no quarrel with that because I was anxious to listen—

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.